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

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 28 May 2020 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061193A0F6C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4xUG1qKgvuor for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67F353A0F6B for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C2349; Thu, 28 May 2020 17:24:56 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1590679493; bh=CaXeCyuXeH8CyrwJvUr T1VplpdI0bsyVYRiq3PlMGPc=; b=aJbMC2N6jIxECBM1lgMQocq8qqMbP4ZQJEo fcbfRyoOPq7GqBOdx5A/NxkwMn0GZfJNe2+NHVPNh9jz+B5tkBbTIVWKgBRIF0aD PAn/6dTU2bN1XD/PfXVDkLlbj9Hd+MVQrTOGJOPTS3j1Tqvj80uLKSFIX9If/EOv o3P0uLAI=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id py-GDTXweDnj; Thu, 28 May 2020 17:24:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:8095:8735:6dd9:e6de] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:8095:8735:6dd9:e6de]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3E743C; Thu, 28 May 2020 17:24:53 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <83FC0DE0-605B-4632-A6D3-1E5F3D0119A5@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_583F5BDE-78E3-4431-A21B-9694B257D504"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 17:24:52 +0200
In-Reply-To: <202d9944-5f32-dd0f-cc0e-c57a7783eedd@foobar.org>
Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
References: <8A5DB52F-5355-484D-8E70-02247C2DF88E@bell.ca> <4FE8C14C-421D-45D5-A1DE-D48E66AAC652@bell.ca> <VI1PR03MB5056782F1E77C7B5D22A8B9FEE8E0@VI1PR03MB5056.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <0bf27e50f7e346cd86d7b25faba75554@boeing.com> <202d9944-5f32-dd0f-cc0e-c57a7783eedd@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/7hbjJfXe5J9Wu_emWsvAGRSOmQ0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 15:25:01 -0000

Hi Nick,

Well written:

> +1 on this.  Also, hats off to Ole for explicitly acknowledging that this is a vendor proxy war.
> 
> As an independent operator of services, I find it disappointing and thoroughly distasteful to see representatives from otherwise reputable vendors engage in a protocol assassination attempt for what are very obviously political reasons.
> 
> This is abusive and damaging to the IETF,  to the development of useful building-block technologies, and serves to act directly against the interests of technology consumers.  It needs to stop.

Yes, it definitely needs to stop.
Sander