Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?

Stewart Bryant <> Fri, 29 May 2020 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65383A08A9 for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 06:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mBPlcKj0t6rX for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 06:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 340DF3A087C for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 06:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x14so3626332wrp.2 for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 06:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FOVII64u+DHsOvRBYyiSiUqySjIeJ0O31mG6ZDQOZNw=; b=MqHqu6JW3yqO0mqJPKfjkphz7pjQbBoUbhVoZw9BU/yYWUK7Ss+F3Zldkst8s91DQc WAR/2BGtX1q5XwSHOgc8WxazvVV2dB5UQww0fOqJEPHrjCSA8G26a78cUTcv5ohN40Gk x+pvChpNjZUfoTmRGc4YJQ431PGXMhHKbJ34LmQptngfwssmY+XZPQ4jWJq1Egxbsb0p CBrIOwg/Jl4RiPQE5D8fl1ozb+wnILxxu57Y4h6RW0KFT/f9w9LvvqamGJOcW/njTdoM TY6/VAZGtTtmaP5+jGN7Pe4yo5ecEZCyob+LI/Ht2YfteMOTiSDnSBAYzt73dXYNTF/o 43yA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FOVII64u+DHsOvRBYyiSiUqySjIeJ0O31mG6ZDQOZNw=; b=WA3XOD++9QXBTY1tRPI1LSkLaJ+lZ/fDdII4zhrR+hd+Npc6fo+tAv1brmrWE5IA6p 0wY+7iDqoeSGsGijaW2muz5u1tX/FrUxtv3wLNXDdm/Wuy7CCE3LRt8lkEUg2t2nCWr5 kUmslmhjTWeJaPYmGypIN6ORa5iUviVYhBCA3DS4hRbFlYXAu0vhv6Ch5jeHBjbhw8et fPiClMxRDQFShuiDVrjXkrLTbc5DB5oj+fJ/Cmfo2dSTOCCXk1O95WAgjCySPxTh88ET rVS3yzW/PRRHTpr5aRTUYGQHdNRVtEXgkzaU/+oTGjG+w5IqJkSz7YqtKKDLrBkLvCS1 WSRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533/Bo+qXtqe4+33nw691de9CO+uJqI1ar3qBN8d3oii5SIvGPRV D39brbyI/q2KW8vGWcml1Z24kMEJDEs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzEEK2rs4nRnOIAsJSpoyTcM0l7FG3IET5Dh8dP8hGr/3tR97lJeaLgwdVJW/BJ76Zmu5ka4Q==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:dd01:: with SMTP id a1mr8632549wrm.224.1590758558597; Fri, 29 May 2020 06:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id h15sm9538528wrt.73.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 May 2020 06:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
From: Stewart Bryant <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 14:22:07 +0100
Cc: Stewart Bryant <>, Mark Smith <>, 6MAN <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Ole Troan <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 13:22:48 -0000

In the past when such issues have arisen a special session has been called at IETF to work out a way forward.

I am not sure how well this would work in a virtual meeting, but it would seem to be an appropriate solution here.

Normal outcomes are pick A, pick B or let both go forward and let the market decide. Although the IETF generally dislikes it, sometimes the later is the only way to get out of the corner.

There are various ways of adopting the third option such as setting one text as informational.

- Stewart

> On 28 May 2020, at 13:11, wrote:
> Segment Routing (CRH, SRH and friends) isn't something 6man has traditionally dealt with.
> We have been more concerned about IPv6 in the open Internet, end to end, and not so much of technologies only applicable within a controlled domain.
> From that perspective, it is not surprising that this work attracts a different participant-set than before.
> It seems that a proxy war is being fought out in the working group.
> With both opponents and proponents of proposals closely aligned along company borders.
> Best regards,
> Ole, with the dystopian hat on.
>> On 28 May 2020, at 13:23, Mark Smith <> wrote:
>> I've been an active participant in the ipng, 6man and v6ops IETF working groups since 2002. 
>> While I've only been to one IETF meeting in person since then (106, sponsored by the Internet Society), over that time I've come to recognise the names of many of the regular and active participants in these IPv6 working groups.
>> I do not recognise many of the names of people who are objecting to the 6man working group adopting the CRH draft.
>> Those who have been active 6man participants in recent years would know that even an ID adopted by 6man, written by Bob and Brian, that had a number of revisions, didn't survive WG last call, and that occurred while Bob was (as he still is) one of the 6man WG chairs.
>> Regards,
>> Mark.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> Administrative Requests:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------