IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Adoption Call for "Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events"

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 13 July 2020 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 1DB153A0C05 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 B2Qk0qKZCrzf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B18F3A0C03 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F2E389BD; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 20:48:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Z-THWydQLed2; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 20:48:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E8B389BC; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 20:48:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D301A795; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 20:51:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Adoption Call for "Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events"
In-Reply-To: <7c61f0a0-5cc3-a8b6-9322-2f886bcd2f79@joelhalpern.com>
References: <CC295D49-5981-41C3-B4DB-E064D66616CE@gmail.com> <CAFU7BAQX8B2n3FFjQ3h-9VLP7zR=zy0nO0z7bEtz3KXZ7wp=eg@mail.gmail.com> <42267b42-2e29-1bc9-1440-e1a847002efd@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1nOPVatXsG+1gdQEpBDmMc6-iby6x_vEN9cVpSY6sNpg@mail.gmail.com> <da41c785-2cc7-7b74-a886-d5202f731498@gmail.com> <dfd12010-5077-186b-e49a-d1fd69bd0e02@joelhalpern.com> <1f0c04ea-5fc4-ad0d-4f51-c18bdccc52f4@gmail.com> <7c61f0a0-5cc3-a8b6-9322-2f886bcd2f79@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 20:51:13 -0400
Message-ID: <16195.1594601473@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/dhXs1PDYhfv443DxX5Lm7K1Txr0>
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: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 00:51:17 -0000

Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
    > That is a really odd construction Brian.  If the authors are not willing to
    > make the change, then if the document is to be adopted with a change the
    > working group is asking for, the WG will have to find a new set of
    > editors.

I'm okay with this.
We don't add consensus building authors/editors often enough.

    > While again technically allowed, it is not what authors usually mean when
    > they ask a working group to adopt their document.

    > But focusing on the fact that technically the document is not yet in the WGs
    > hands seems to miss the point of the process.  Which is for the IETF to end
    > up with a document the IETF supports.  So I find your arguments confusing.

We adopt documents so that we can put them on the agenda.  That's all.

Over 15+ years, we have confused adoption with WGLC.  It has to stop.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email