Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Sun, 12 February 2017 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C27129B00 for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:52:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z8BtfGrQ0HxB for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE31C129AFE for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:52:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43CA24099F; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:52:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=1.tigertech; t=1486929147; bh=Zsagm884euLD7hdabNxPtNeQxdfzwO8xkxIAB0IJpTs=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Xy38A1k1Pzlw9AMyatb7N0ShTlk4DJNibBC20HA1UeH/acIRcr9wtO97N87RWakat oXkL+e7XYAIG3q4j9fG6X8W7BN0z5UQG9eZqYcu/N58cup+m4NaJGJkoeMALuBDgGp CrfxUQB7/XEsGcAiPzx5AqKB1L5E4rOCnW51e+EU=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66C212400DD; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:52:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
To: Brian E Carpenter <>,
References: <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:52:26 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:52:29 -0000

The RFC Editor clearly has final call.

However, I think this is an inappropriate use of the technical 
acknowledgements section of the document.  The purpose of that section 
is to acknowledge direct contributions to the document, such as 
performing significant review, providing useful pieces of text that do 
not rise to the level of document authorship, and other similar issues.
We do not, for example, acknowledge all of the supporting developments 
and research, all of the open source implementations (or vendor 
implementations) that help us confirm that things work before 
publication, and the myriad other aspects that contribute to making an 
RFC from the IETF.


On 2/12/17 1:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
> I don't think this is a WG matter and I don't think it's the IETF's business
> either. It seems to me that this matter is in the scope of the RFC Editor to
> decide, if the authors can't, since it's about the style and contents of an RFC.
> IMHO, it has nothing to do with its technical content or with the fact that
> it's an IETF stream document.
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> On 12/02/2017 06:28, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Hi,
>> <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> is currently in AUTH48.  According to the datatracker it has been in the RFC Editor queue for 54 days.  Everything is done, except there is an impasse over a change to the Acknowledgement Section.  One of the authors has proposed adding:
>>    Fernando Gont would like to thank Nelida Garcia and Guillermo Daniel
>>    Gont for their love and support, and Jorge Oscar Gont and Diego
>>    Armando Maradona for their inspiration.
>> Some of the other authors don’t think this change is appropriate for AUTH48, but the author proposing this has insisted on adding this text.
>> Please respond with either support or non-support for this proposed change by 18 February 2017.  I think it is unfortunate to add extra delay over this change, but after consulting with our AD, I think the best course is to ask the working group.
>> Thanks,
>> Bob (Document Shepard)
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> Administrative Requests:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------