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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fernando,

For my part, I think there may be a risk of too much binding of personal
matters to professional matters.  In some cases, distinct values could
be leveraged more if separated, in other cases if converged.  That too 
are facets of privacy :-)

Alex

Le 22/02/2017 à 01:23, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> On 02/21/2017 05:44 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 21, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I went through the responses to the call regarding
>>> <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> .  The question in the
>>> email was:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> My summary of the responses is:
>>>
>>> Fred Baker                 non-support Lorenzo Colitti
>>> non-support Enno Rey                   support t.pech
>>> non-support Brian Carpenter            Doesn’t think it’s a w.g.
>>> decision Joel Halpern               non-support Sander Steffan
>>> support Roland Bless               non-support Alexandre Petrescu
>>> non-support 神明達哉                    Didn’t indicate a position
>>>
>>> By my count there is 6 non-support and 2 in support of the
>>> acknowledgement paragraph (not counting the response from the
>>> authors Fernando and Alissa).
>>>
>>> Based on this, Suresh should notify the RFC Editor to remove the
>>> acknowledgement paragraph.
>>
>> Thanks Bob. Will let the RFC Editor know and proceed with
>> publication.
>
> Just out of curiosity:
>
> Is a statement like "I do not support" *without any rationale* of
> value?
>
> And, are statements like "I do not support this, because we only do X
> in the 'Acnkowledgements' section" of any value, when it should be
> obvious to anyone that RFCs have contained virtually *anything*? --
> please check the "Acknowledgements" section of RFC1812 for an
> example, but there are many others.
>
> I ask because, essentially, folks that have argued against the
> Acknowledgement I added fall into one of these two camps: no
> rationale for objecting (other than "I do not support", "too late")
> or claiming that Acks follow "guidelines" that evidence shows that
> it's not true.
>
> As noted, I will go with whatever the wg decides. But I'm curious
> about the above.
>
> Thanks,
>