IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Pete Resnick's Abstain on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with COMMENT)

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Wed, 22 January 2014 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A581A0187; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:31:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 U7mdEXOaSX34; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22c.google.com (mail-we0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A6D1A00C8; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id q58so604017wes.3 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:31:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=l6fz33CG0CnlbUR2UXTL108yZT9PYcRytrxgcDFK4sA=; b=bgqA/uHbn+jD4idAnaFq8j1UGaOIWhAz7jJztNWbyI8aTqyAciCTPPDrH+muOWlN83 v9+rPrsIG4RhP/UrVTgqxhQdllV6QRsXoetZEvNdNB9XtEuwsFtlbYBXLlK2XdoQPkF2 7VrTRlDwjBBccwhrMMTusQB0qOUJCQg1GB463GLP/EW/3Sgawu+dgprejRd9S9/sZTyi vodoVjoSUK398vtrX62ObBytO2HLoiGBIQzy2PmzvHIliW5Tlr+VW+pF6D8yVnA+5D48 W5gY2i8B5bA/AJgiJ3ZwSnu/LR11NNqsiJjvmmmKsjHlnd6Jiatgr9fCU1KbxHDCgiUX y22Q==
X-Received: by 10.180.37.193 with SMTP id a1mr5408179wik.52.1390433483609; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j9sm18046730wjz.13.2014.01.22.15.31.16 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:31:19 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7B0B18FF-F6F9-42E2-B267-612B9A49112A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Pete Resnick's Abstain on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with COMMENT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52E05292.4000301@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:31:14 -0800
Message-Id: <C78BF609-2256-4043-A646-6C443906AFF4@gmail.com>
References: <20140122192018.8692.82071.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52E02C0C.7080901@si6networks.com> <52E0322C.1000301@qti.qualcomm.com> <52E03DCB.4060101@gont.com.ar> <52E03F1D.3000307@innovationslab.net> <47E8B622-5F85-414A-B266-87B0C998E4CD@gmail.com> <52E05292.4000301@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, ipv6@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses@tools.ietf.org, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:31:27 -0000

Pete,

On Jan 22, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:

> On 1/22/14 5:16 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> I have a question about what will happen if we agree to change it to Informational.  Will this require a new IETF last call, or sending it back to the working group and starting the process over?
>>   
> 
> Nope. Going "down" in status just takes the wave of the IESG's magic wand. 2026, 6.1.2, paragraph 5.

Good, then I don't object.  Better to get it through the process than argue over the IETF label.  

If there aren't objections from the w.g. then we can do that.

Bob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email