Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls
Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Fri, 17 December 2010 12:40 UTC
Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E1D3A6B17 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 04:40:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.093
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.506, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l9Kf+PiLt2qE for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 04:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com (e2.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.142]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843353A6B16 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 04:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.85]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id oBHCP2Xf009846 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:25:02 -0500
Received: from d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (d01relay03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.235]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20EBF4DE803E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:39:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id oBHCfl5r319444 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:41:47 -0500
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id oBHCfkac028310 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:41:47 -0200
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-197-196.mts.ibm.com [9.65.197.196]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id oBHCfkZZ028240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:41:46 -0200
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id oBHCfh5e003040; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:41:44 -0500
Message-Id: <201012171241.oBHCfh5e003040@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls
In-reply-to: <5A0C0340-98D7-4ED1-8CD8-335D610EC9B2@cisco.com>
References: <4D0A19C0.4020409@innovationslab.net> <005701cb9d2d$556395b0$002ac110$@sturek@att.net> <5A0C0340-98D7-4ED1-8CD8-335D610EC9B2@cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> message dated "Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:55:40 -0800."
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:41:43 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
Cc: 'IPv6 WG Mailing List' <ipv6@ietf.org>, 'Brian Haberman' <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:40:08 -0000
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> writes: > When we advance a routing protocol to Proposed Standard, for reasons > related to ancient IESG history related to routing, we generally > require a test report that shows interoperable implementations of > the standard in question. And FWIW, I think that requirement expired and has long been OBE. See RFC 4794 "RFC 1264 Is Obsolete" While getting a routing/interoperability report is a fine thing to do, it is not and should not be a requirement to advance this (or any) draft to PS. This draft should advance on its own merits (on which I have not opinion). Thomas
- Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Brian Haberman
- RE: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Don Sturek
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Fred Baker
- RE: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Don Sturek
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Fred Baker
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Thomas Narten
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Fred Baker
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Thomas Narten
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Bob Hinden
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Bob Hinden
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Don Sturek
- RE: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls Don Sturek
- Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls JP Vasseur