Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Iván Arce <> Thu, 23 February 2017 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02721294DF for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:37:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.489
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: DNS error: query timed out)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S_jNzKJkew4R for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 192ED129A2F for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x35so2262838qtc.2 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:37:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MhL7T6MuD8nspKFhbc6HHpJpIEQEoy7gH2lHMzM99Hg=; b=GWzNzNnLOJlGUYxwrLcZCtjQe8oNXg9ZBvX/b+haaYU5S9TFWYb+8CS8Ma89kAvT5I TrHEhWtiQjkvqVZaUIGbbed+uiXn3iPZ6Jp/1Evgh9W0qRe3yM5yt0/vrIO1yKdD3aVn sYZ4qneh3XgYp5HYcdVcaAkNggicu0S5lA9CM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MhL7T6MuD8nspKFhbc6HHpJpIEQEoy7gH2lHMzM99Hg=; b=iwxLJYAGypeBfKsTosc1S+boiTwRLIvmqyRnCJb5jwxgPjVJQ5RIWN117Qq5pbwwhb wBOTjoj5KLmLa3KVXftJVTi2YzmbL9ucfe9KUY0NWocTGe5CXyiUuetrtCphBoefuqQY D8pB4+yCpU4/r/4BINJ9Cvt1l673KiOsiQ2NxBkUtRJzOZ6QQF5RjRCFW+A9ehaWvE1v PBy2PNE2/hZNEOg1zTuqcXTh1KblI5YE+sDpVGS3WCPvJjFt3MWnTG6tbkRgAyD5JoFx vz9+JrbNuwt2zJvn73/BWj/MHg0uYqHEXemdXoKgjP9rym7b+YVn42JWA6svwYlShabI hp5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nUnPJ1QwVIOKzrFTVUVc8X6QgN2mHR/NOtia+aXCm5TSmtyd8nFc/xqUzpypnO7Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id c48mr22202212qta.74.1487882235128; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:37:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id r188sm3000315qkb.50.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:37:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>, Peter Hessler <>
References: <> <>
From: Iván Arce <>
Organization: Fundación Dr. Manuel Sadosky
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:37:07 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 Lightning/4.7.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <>
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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:37:30 -0000

El 23/2/17 a las 11:14, Lorenzo Colitti escribió:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Peter Hessler <
> <>> wrote:
>     As an implementation, OpenBSD will never add such a crazy thing.  And
>     you know that many other implementations won't do so either.
>     I strongly oppose this draft.
> Bit late to object to that text now I'm afraid.
> A good time to object would have been 19 years ago when the text you
> object to became the standard:

    "The Last Call is intended as a final check with the IETF community
     to make sure that no important concerns have been missed or

     The IESG review takes into account comments received during the
     Last Call.  Once Last Call has been completed, the IESG will
     deliberate whether to accept the document on the standards

Seems you are attributing to yourself an authoritative opinion that you
don't have. Maybe you thought posting a lot allows you to dictate things.

I find your reiterative trolling about _form_ rather than _substance_
out of place and out of touch with reality.

To be clear: it is false that your point was purely technical. Your
point was purely procedural, about IETF procedures not about the actual
technical matter being discussed. And it was also wrong.

Besides, if IETF participants are not supposed to object to technical
spec at Last Call, BEFORE they become Internet Standards, then when
should they do it?


Iván Arce
Director del Programa STIC
Fundación Dr. Manuel Sadosky
TE: (+54-11) 4328-5164
GPG fingerprint: 4D97 3003 76C9 9DA4 7209  7982 0A1D 10BE CEA9 1B6E