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

Fernando Gont <> Mon, 13 February 2017 04:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA54B129596 for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:11:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oABr57xRR_lu for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:11:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1763D12953A for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1291:200:42e::2] ( [IPv6:2001:1291:200:42e::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 298C280C5E; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 05:11:18 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
To: Suresh Krishnan <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:10:31 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>
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: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 04:11:30 -0000

On 02/12/2017 11:53 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> In many (if not most/all) of these cases, the acks were added
>> during AUTH48, when I just got the time to think about the people
>> that had provided significative help/support.
>> It never crossed my mind that someone could have concerns with
>> this. As a guy that reads RFCs, I couldn't care less about the
>> Acks.
> Either you care or you don’t. You cannot have it both ways. If you do
> not care about the Acks, I am not sure we are having this discussion
> and taking a chunk of everyone’s time.

What I meant is that, when reading an RFC, I don't care about what's in
the Acks. As an author, I try to give credit where I think is deserved.

In this particular case, my impression was that the decision to not
approve the document with the Acks was arbitrary. It was an editorial
change or, as Brian said, just "cosmetics". Given that there does not
seem to be any rules for writing Acknowledgements, and that the change
was editorial, I was puzzled for the author approval of an RFC to be
delayed for that. To be honest, it wasn't even clear to me what the
objection was. That's why I took your option of consulting the wg (if
you let go arbitrary decisions, you don't know where that stops).

Based on this discussion, the lesson that I've learned is that, during
AUTH48, an Acknowledgement cannot be added, unless all authors agree (or
not even, I guess). I'll make sure to put more energy on the
Acknowledgments of documents at an earlier stage next time, so that, if
anything, this discussion happens at such an earlier stage.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492