Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

Pete Resnick <> Fri, 03 February 2017 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490ED129A38; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 15:08:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.198 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_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vFuY_hLHPha9; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 15:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 619A5129A30; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 15:08:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1486163280; x=1517699280; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=riJQUa3uTwrax9dJdDnZqykKPr5rpBDdIhdUUkVv6Ig=; b=rBlcAoBW3WFFFNF6BRuR1+BxyfrDCET/XveRJc8mSV7MnzJdYNPi8RPv ZYgpLWGc/l+F2C3L6DJVlGuTRQjpmeaWC+VDKIpx/boyUcqtITc3MvUmi IXk3JzKLFnghqrmEnUjJ6b2E7j/P8K4k4np9hzdADhnw5bcMRu4f/sZ2f Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,331,1477983600"; d="scan'208,217";a="260211534"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2017 15:07:59 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5800,7501,8428"; a="893934287"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 03 Feb 2017 15:07:59 -0800
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 15:07:58 -0800
From: Pete Resnick <>
To: Suresh Krishnan <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 17:07:56 -0600
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_4ECBD3BD-2A48-411A-AC43-FF37BBE6AB58_="
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5319)
X-Originating-IP: []
X-ClientProxiedBy: ( To (
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, 6man WG <>, IETF <>, "" <>
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: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 23:08:02 -0000

On 3 Feb 2017, at 16:09, Suresh Krishnan wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Pete Resnick <> 
>> wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:22, 
>> <> wrote:
>> are we re-spinning the debate on a WG-agreed text ?
>> <tp>
>> Yes, and I am sure that that is exactly what is intended.
>> Then let's encourage people outside of 6man, with other points of 
>> view, and other arguments to come forward.
>> A re-run of the discussions already had in 6man with the same 
>> arguments and the same participants doesn't seem useful.
>> For a brief (sic) overview take a look at 672 messages already on the 
>> topic:
>> <>
>> O.
>> Might I, as a relatively disinterested observer of this discussion, 
>> humbly[1] suggest that pointing the IETF list to a 672-message thread 
>> is not a way to avoid re-running the discussion "with the same 
>> arguments and the same participants". It would be significantly more 
>> useful if you, as chair and the caller of the (apparently rough) 
>> consensus summarized the issue, explained what you took the objection 
>> to be, and told us what you saw as the replies to those objections 
>> that convinced you that WG had properly considered the issue and that 
>> there was (rough) WG consensus to go with the text you ended up with. 
>> Then folks who think you called it wrong can explain the essential 
>> point they think you missed when you made that call. Having the rest 
>> of us re-create your evaluation of the consensus by reading 672 
>> messages is, at best, inefficient.
> Thanks for the suggestion. Ole will be working on summarizing the WG 
> discussion.

Excellent. Thanks Ole.

> I also want to point out the IESG statement on IETF Last Calls at 
> <> which 
> states
> "If substantive discussion of a technical comment is needed, it is 
> often appropriate to move that discussion to the WG list, once the 
> comment has been made on the IETF list. "
> I think the comment(s) under question fall(s) under that category. For 
> this reason, I would like to loop the 6man WG mailing list into this 
> discussion going forward.

If it's a *new* substantive technical comment, I absolutely agree, that 
should go back to the WG list. However, if this is an old topic that the 
WG has already come to a conclusion on, bringing it back to the list is 
not useful unless something has changed; that just becomes a "pile on" 
session. That's why I suggested Ole summarize the issue first, and that 
should be copied to the IETF list. That way we can see whether the issue 
is "The WG missed this important aspect of the issue" (which should go 
back to the WG to discuss once it's properly formulated) or "The chair 
misevaluated the consensus" (which should probably be handled by you and 
the chair). Either way, we agree that a protracted rehash of the topic 
on the IETF list is not the right choice.

Pete Resnick <>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478