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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Wed, 22 February 2017 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5CF31297AC for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 04:35:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uQcjStO1HA9W for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 04:35:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E215129795 for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 04:35:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 40so734917uau.2 for <>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 04:35:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UGHg0+uI+4D6KHrF4gLo/4mwzPrWsnokykmLB2aHrAw=; b=fpkT6ubn6D9wU+L35KsrwcDT5XWwGges7XFeXW8K/wXMmo8aUol+m6/6Rg/b/GNDqu 9RMgLCzNB2wZUg13Zd70BDKGNggWj+6WtwfQlxAk1UUOD2XnezFmep04U7ZnTNmf8BeG hGSRvFQAz9DSJiYF4MlOUy9/eOgs6CgnGuQrn5DRXI7Sz8gxGignDBWs6BPro2Y5/yQ6 mkoO0KO5sPMRF1W/a3HPfU3Sc5z7QUz3LVUDSKrlYy0Ekr6yIc+q8K21pY/dPTphlREo h3jd7yi3g624WFEtfgi++zDUM5cWKSo12K3iTCsYoF3/AeUzY6hS5aYgWDoAIzyxbFR6 SOcA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UGHg0+uI+4D6KHrF4gLo/4mwzPrWsnokykmLB2aHrAw=; b=DzNpyKNK0lq/ITy9lU+OeA7H37eannhRW7O9t9cOnABumxCLo184668DgaeyFsI9rn mFRsfN24w03xyUWvh9q1rKTmvsv7977okT6pTrJfMYhzRTjiPsRxqATokLQxo/RdLzeg Fe5BPv+bVEtYx3jJOMFotj3HOzNuAOUI8ozViF9mpwthfwnaFfGwIvdad/a1bDJdJKCF Tx2mL8O9nMeZ5Mg0qpBl+96cv4qebmpy3ExxV6M7CTL68Er0gXB+LIETcAYzmJ3oyU/5 BPDCjzHW+6Ob9ABM4IqkLq7BPqKS1y75hcsK7JpYn6OHHOpB1uz3SDm3bl3UWPrFxkke pnOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kMOdRle53pma7/sPhf1m++hOPlW7Z0/xgUcfhRJYR8ZLbilE/517aZO55WQP2tASN2yD4z0juhj9Is0o9b
X-Received: by with SMTP id d32mr2451763uad.122.1487766913898; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 04:35:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 04:34:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:34:53 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Iv=C3=A1n_Arce?= <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1227d069aff605491dba2b
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Fernando Gont <>, 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 12:35:17 -0000

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Iván Arce <>

> Since when personal acknowledgements require WG consensus?
> What are the guidelines or IETF procedures that regulate what an
> author can or cannot put in the Acknowledgement section?
> I've looked for answers to those questions and found none.

I suspect we'll find that the reasons we don't have answers yet is because
this has never been a problem before. Now that it has been, we may end up
creating more process to prevent it. Sic transit gloria mundi :-)

FWIW, I opposed the proposed change because it is very clearly out of line
with the intention of the AUTH48 state. says the authors are given
"to look over their document for errors".

Personally, every time I have been a document author I have strived to make
as few changes in AUTH48 as possible, because I felt that changing too much
was tantamount to abusing the trust of the working group and of the IETF in
whose names the document is published. The magic words are:

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.

I think acknowledgements to Diego Armando Maradona, your favourite deity,
sponsors, or the tooth fairy are all fine - as long as they are legitimate
expressions of WG consensus. Even if from a process perspective there is no
further WG stage beyond AUTH48, we as authors should always remember that
the documents are not ours, they're the WGs and the IETF's.