IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 17 December 2010 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C3D3A6B29 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:34:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.439
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mXNYOgn+akMs for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:34:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D3D3A6B16 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:34:56 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEANP1Ck2rR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACkLXOpBJs+hUoEhGWGG4MX
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,361,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="298713905"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2010 13:36:43 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com [10.32.244.221]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBHDadkH018168; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:36:43 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:36:43 -0800
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com on Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:36:43 -0800
Subject: Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201012171241.oBHCfh5e003040@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:36:28 -0800
Message-Id: <51DDC1AB-6FB7-42A0-AC48-D8B883B871D4@cisco.com>
References: <4D0A19C0.4020409@innovationslab.net> <005701cb9d2d$556395b0$002ac110$@sturek@att.net> <5A0C0340-98D7-4ED1-8CD8-335D610EC9B2@cisco.com> <201012171241.oBHCfh5e003040@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 'Brian Haberman' <brian@innovationslab.net>, 'IPv6 WG Mailing List' <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:34:57 -0000

On Dec 17, 2010, at 4:41 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:

> Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> writes:
> 
>> When we advance a routing protocol to Proposed Standard, for reasons
>> related to ancient IESG history related to routing, we generally
>> require a test report that shows interoperable implementations of
>> the standard in question.
> 
> And FWIW, I think that requirement expired and has long been OBE.
> 
> See RFC 4794 "RFC 1264 Is Obsolete"
> 
> While getting a routing/interoperability report is a fine thing to do,
> it is not and should not be a requirement to advance this (or any)
> draft to PS.
> 
> This draft should advance on its own merits (on which I have not
> opinion).

The fact is that the working group is trying to decide n something and Zigbee has relevant data. I'm simply asking for an appropriately-redacted version of the report to be made public.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email