IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 13 May 2020 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 1A0B03A0365; Wed, 13 May 2020 15:28:07 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 FJpTWalCZhDe; Wed, 13 May 2020 15:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E521A3A02C1; Wed, 13 May 2020 15:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id n15so169368pjt.4; Wed, 13 May 2020 15:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iIZAnmo0lpBqXIbZSgHfn/AQLVf7SRgCfMrRE9o2hbI=; b=N+F9nwfBlzrkY4xMySwt3oLJ5ecYwJaJyDb1m4YiAWAZDv1TG3vOW0nvYy/gBS/hJ2 nHhc9rNT1/uKFUdujYzpojL6OFLV2g+xBLuvcuN1hXlHB1nU3jGRB7vIDky5+0Wv8UwI zTAvuEmy3LdkH2jv3By1mhvAdfJqFW0no7Pb/wYRJNCdC4ZZ7D9ayWuSdGRtPyidnD/U XXxzLxa/gzURE0iMsDkDjLWaE+TQVwrUKsFnNs5yWv4VdZF6FtKZzZJfOqKQcriTZeFU E6KMC4C0AQ618dKSuBs8uAKGAq9G9P7Xi0X/W/7VxbvXKPAcCOex4MNkA04Lld0tMM4U NnWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iIZAnmo0lpBqXIbZSgHfn/AQLVf7SRgCfMrRE9o2hbI=; b=F76qdekrHlu3oHF9SmFL+7zFK/YnpfWm6zJecbgLEyWMuX3hKqCDEnWP1oUqQUODsR Qjk3LI40Za6um49tBoFWnWvqeJiAtDgdKc3AARyXcJ1P+H+9lx3/0SHAds/DgMHQ3A1F 4p9KK8tlPHBY5WE9Ca1wel0EY1gfFcfyGqlhN56QqpTGUmgEb5DbdbAOWtSnwIs4PykT A++Q7AaBsnxfAdI/pbItV9Qt6oXL2cAB7hQeLuCjU1VfaRPqDWkRmK6BnoiICcFS3XD/ tWr39PZGPW3l5fjQbfQ8Z7gyUnlXB0TjXsR8tzY4b3Dhth5VQwSqJg61O5JnwGLg6HyQ Ix5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532S6n4Se+ZqvWdbCSDBPgZCi8NbI33ll7aeUzZUl7FW8jvyXLeq L9XBREj+qxtNWrRpfMfRNMKFYWEh
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw8LkzI9iovnDKFZecU1tNzIKtOJktp93421NrMm8T22XQ8ds9He9DZe4edmHO4Ztx1ybHrww==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b183:: with SMTP id s3mr1299527plr.234.1589408883661; Wed, 13 May 2020 15:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m43sm2879079pje.16.2020.05.13.15.28.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 May 2020 15:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]
To: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <DM6PR05MB6348E9AD1E088792C2F10BB4AEBF0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8CC3F837-B4D6-4570-AF2F-37041839F391@employees.org> <21E9A957-1A31-4A11-8E78-5F7E382866D4@juniper.net> <d354d411-2ac9-3b8d-136f-11e4914dfa24@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <f0feb1b2-d82f-af8e-4371-1d65306206cf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 10:27:58 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d354d411-2ac9-3b8d-136f-11e4914dfa24@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/EnTkPgYJx6kCS41xgupk6u5YS3w>
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: Wed, 13 May 2020 22:28:07 -0000

Oops, I should have said IMHO since I am certainly not a chair...

Regards
   Brian

On 14-May-20 09:06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 14-May-20 07:59, John Scudder wrote:
> ...
>> But at any rate, the question for the chairs is: do you think 6man needs SPRING’s permission in order to consider adopting CRH? 
> 
> No, of course not. But the final decision is made by IETF consensus, not by WG consensus.
> 
>    Brian
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email