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

Fernando Gont <> Wed, 22 February 2017 02:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CAEB1294FC for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:15:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0axj3THJ0SM5 for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20F091294FB for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD9288085F; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 03:14:58 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
To: Fred Baker <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 23:03:36 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>, Robert Hinden <>, Suresh Krishnan <>
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: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 02:15:10 -0000

On 02/21/2017 10:25 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Fernando Gont <>
> wrote:
>> Is a statement like "I do not support" *without any rationale* of
>> value?
> I think it's a fact. People, myself among them, said they didn't
> support it. The discussion, or at least most of it, was public.
> I'll repeat my rationale. If one is filing an individual submission,
> and especially one through the independent stream, I suppose one can
> say in it pretty much what one wants. If we're discussing a working
> group draft, we are documenting the consensus of a working group. I
> don't recall the working group reviewing an acknowledgement of the
> members of a family

So, may I ask: what's the basis for assessing that?  Are you a family
member of every "Baker" out there?  And, besides, does that mean that if
you have a family member that happens to work in the same industry,
you're not allowed to Ack him/her?

Did anyone bother to ask, e.g., what was the rationale for adding the
acknowledgement I added?  Tell you what: two of the people that you
guessworked as my family members have funded my work. In fact, they even
funded the first IETF meeting I attended, at a time in which I was

> or a particular Argentine athlete (Diego
> Maradona); that text came in without review or consensus during
> AUTH48. Further, if one reviews the ~8000 RFCs that have already made
> it through the mill, none come to mind that contain such an
> acknowledgement. The people acknowledged in RFCs are people who
> commented on or otherwise made some contribution to the document.

Nobody bothered to ask what the ack was about. For instance, I noted
during AUTH48 (before this was made public) that two of the people I was
acking provided funding. -- and I've seen plenty of funding acks in
RFCs. (should I have said "money" or "funding" instead of "support"?
Would that have been acceptable?). -- and please note, I offered to
remove the (concerning, it seems) word "love", but that didn't make any

Besides, as I noted before, RFC1812 includes an excerpt from *a
Shakespeare's play* in the "Acknowledgements" section. Is that supposed
to be more "in place" than the text I added?

Bottom-line: I'm kind of surprised about this discussion. I don't know
when the Acks section of an RFC became a substantive part of a spec that
the wg cares about. That said, I've AUTH48-approved the document without
the Ack.

Fernando Gont
e-mail: ||
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1