IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 15 May 2020 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 E15C63A0C12; Fri, 15 May 2020 09:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 psvUra9No4FN; Fri, 15 May 2020 09:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C14B3A0C01; Fri, 15 May 2020 09:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: 6man-chairs@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04FGL8C0097334 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 May 2020 17:21:08 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <DM6PR05MB6348E9AD1E088792C2F10BB4AEBF0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8CC3F837-B4D6-4570-AF2F-37041839F391@employees.org> <21E9A957-1A31-4A11-8E78-5F7E382866D4@juniper.net> <48606063-622D-4A59-9A80-65C459F494BF@cisco.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <6c6d40d5-f197-a564-b2ad-cc1621e3a9d7@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 17:21:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <48606063-622D-4A59-9A80-65C459F494BF@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cqcxZGArSppj9vPFcjDb29KwOcI>
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: Fri, 15 May 2020 16:21:17 -0000

Zafar Ali (zali) wrote on 15/05/2020 13:53:
> It is clear to all that the current draft and adoption request is an 
> attempt to circumvent the standard practice.

Zafar,

Speaking as an unaffiliated operator who runs kit from plenty of 
vendors, CRH looks interesting from a technical point of view.

Juniper seems to be claiming running code, so it would be a more 
productive use of working group time if we concentrated on rough 
consensus on the technical merits rather than getting side-tracked with 
procedural distractions.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email