IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 11 May 2019 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C721201A2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 13:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2xqIMNY7AqKq for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 13:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x529.google.com (mail-pg1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 964EA120188 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2019 13:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x529.google.com with SMTP id i21so4686404pgi.12 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2019 13:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MonVMXU/1HBcU7KQSgFPymt7rCpb68A0XW4cLB1hHqc=; b=A4H2YxrnSwtNsVZhdhhXSo57fr9DLQzmVtyzGMsW/52kDT2x2Y8H7U68uKgVWfz017 dAP+AHCHDG5G5lAarmVdLKVOy+TGYB2XsGExm0P+OkzDyo4pTPWLOieybWkFKTCoHA4s ZFwnUC6xfHN0TrKVEBZrXVIXpcb6Fno+zQ0QLl0T1MjtU1Bqk7CnJV8sGlyTt/dG3WjV x4coVZ8uPMNRRgeQEqDHmGjsgigZY/Ti5lT/9YKz9x9VCqZN8zYZLvRYpzRZUdp84kHB kKZsGsBrvq+le9IIVZKSv3/a3hQ65bKpZE0uv2cDNwKkPg9HRP0DHs7ChK1CbPn9RUUX /30Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MonVMXU/1HBcU7KQSgFPymt7rCpb68A0XW4cLB1hHqc=; b=Bec51mHBeS3ayBCFf2GlrvVMcFBcM4ICpIf3AXzshLCAVeIMYkF9U5pURL9uYwLQJ+ DAlnWjut8EILArPOFqn1Lt1kOyYG+DcAuEB7F3Iq5PtryMQYz0Y+cSWxkyTF/xS+ulUI IZtnC8ItcoXDHHbM5w4sJvmopL7Ms37DYlLU5fBRC5tDIw4933ON9U3qmyJ/GcnRsC8Z YnXa6ny4gg+3tyHvSHAvlZsy+0H3QtIpfxBiyYG79fqTk0eHTm3uSu0kHT0Z2ISfBaAc IBrNhhUqeF3NniHLqQAJVNrHokftVXU47HPtHhS9siAANFZ5kCdSPtUd0oeaa37xn0tz yaJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXUKIlOY2M9yXkrm8YDmMoyBm/cI3ubutb6kRMjQLz3JTp07+Ln lBBgtVOPdYXrqwW0p+qrho0/FK9A
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxKjpIXEK4Ksp+YtGqDujGLwon+9I+os9kWrHZ0BNj5G+fhi/zkXiMGXOW2YJSwmlgl2nyRzQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:d408:: with SMTP id a8mr22500127pgh.184.1557607900849; Sat, 11 May 2019 13:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.72.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o66sm11987154pfb.184.2019.05.11.13.51.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 11 May 2019 13:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <a2465e81-a17f-ab48-efda-20fe12a70077@foobar.org> <30239E0C-C444-4A7E-8342-AEE47BF8A2BB@employees.org> <20190505200449.GB7546@vurt.meerval.net> <80073906-c3c0-1f22-9e7f-c2b349063936@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xzVW3m0mN7jEn8SYyYCYhrufVnkfp3rBjJcijBkvucNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC-35yVYXSRR0sRL-MBMHyOFZtJx9E9h14G8qqVh5T7qGA@mail.gmail.com> <232c1a43-0fd9-4eae-737b-260a3906f72a@gmail.com> <663F6C0B-7B8A-4088-B9C0-B2867B0C3EB8@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5ee0ec42-f1e5-eb0a-0e37-af52ae33c043@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 08:51:36 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <663F6C0B-7B8A-4088-B9C0-B2867B0C3EB8@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YZ7sEac9f30zXtLhVM98Yj1WRdg>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 11 May 2019 20:51:50 -0000

On 12-May-19 08:39, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> 
>> On May 6, 2019, at 2:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> whoever shepherds this draft should note this.
>>
>> Actually, no, they shouldn't, because they should reach their
>> conclusion based on the technical arguments.
> 
> Actually, they should, because in their notes to the IESG they are asked whether anyone has threatened to appeal. Job threatened to appeal, and is highlighting the fact with this sentence.

Yes, if the document advances, that should be in the writeup. But the decision whether it advances must be based on outcome of the technical arguments.
 
> And for the record, Job, Nick, and Sander are not the only ones that are not members of the putative consensus. I have stated (would have to look it up to give you the link to the email and the date) that IMHO the benefits are minor and there is a security loophole. My issues remain unaddressed. So I'm part of the anti-consensus. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.

Yes, that's correct. And your issues haven't been addressed because they're intrinsic to the proposal. That's why we're having this discussion.
 
> As to "rough consensus" and its nature, the way I have interpreted it multiple working groups - including the IESG - has been that if I have a person that has an issue and simply won't shut up, I focus on listening to the person and making sure that they are heard. The concept is that the majority is often wrong, but a minority may have noticed an issue that will turn out to be important. So it is important to listen carefully to that minority. Their view is only set aside when the working group concludes that they simply are not interested in having the issue resolved, and they are the only speaker. If I have multiple speakers - and especially, in matters of operation such as this one, operational speakers - it's not "rough consensus", it's "failure to achieve consensus."
> 
> My $0.02.

I quite agree. At the moment it's Ole's call what happens next. We've had some good proposals for improving the text, but that doesn't resolve the main question.

Regards
   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email