RE: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?

"Voyer, Daniel" <> Fri, 29 May 2020 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302493A091F for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 WHSlHlbbjGrl for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 842C73A091C for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;;; q=dns/txt; s=ESAcorp; t=1590762416; x=1622298416; h=from:to:cc:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject; bh=cuWiAJiTh/DVDKPQu2xLOwd2RLecPscc6vd9m52fW7E=; b=LBYHuuXaAA0sEirAVFl7lanN6Jxgo4TiaZ689FoJ/MuPOHuAJ4Z8l+I9 yce7JzVfQFFRMNEjBEZjbi9EsLq3sLZvzR6A/wH15Eg2/XAlUE2e2cKhX /fbtb10CERn6DXMUrD9AKpCk7/Sj1CTYz7eqeEhRiTH4+QhFfbEu8V98s yRBrvWA6jECyi0PWMnMv4qiH+nKrkj7BhP+vjbkoY9isfEc7VOzdeq6lw Xnylq1rfqOWrN+Vb2v46WKQtDE0hEL896ZN4ERVSryY5StZyWLjaALN9X swGKc8jL+uAYBoVG5uSADFWX6lamH5N9cNkoAvwIR9WZbuntkSmWyfFMl g==;
IronPort-SDR: +3pCofcYmvC0rs8hdhbk1UCjEq5Fj73Duxjo62qgUb23U2bbTfMX6TikSpHx3yZulV+I/X7ksR HdEFxVEEoQyw==
Subject: RE: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384; 29 May 2020 10:26:55 -0400
Received: from (2002:8eb6:120e::8eb6:120e) by (2002:8eb6:120c::8eb6:120c) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:26:54 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::985f:63a7:1da1:aa02]) by ([fe80::985f:63a7:1da1:aa02%22]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:26:54 -0400
From: "Voyer, Daniel" <>
To: Fred Baker <>, Stewart Bryant <>
CC: 6MAN <>
Thread-Topic: [EXT]Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
Thread-Index: AQHWNcFI6KyG3tqOrEe7xSr2LvPYY6i/X1qAgAAA0AD//766AA==
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 14:26:54 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.37.20051002
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 14:26:58 -0000

I agree with Stewart. Addressing these outstanding issues by email only is a challenge. 

When people make the effort to meet in person means they are truly determine solve it and also agree they might put a bit of water in their wine

We could also have virtual room/webex.


On 2020-05-29, 10:20 AM, "ipv6 on behalf of Fred Baker" < on behalf of> wrote:

    > On May 29, 2020, at 7:17 AM, Stewart Bryant <> wrote:
    > My main point was that a list discussion of this type rarely reaches an acceptable outcome, and that an objective discussion at IETF is normally a better approach. Indeed resolving issues like this is exactly why we meet F2F at IETF.

    So your point is that this entire discussion needs to wait until we meet f2f?

    I think, in fairness, we have done quite a bit on email, and check things discussed f2f on email.