Return-Path: 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 59C5A1200CE for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:12:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.497 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 U32pvKe9PtOc for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi1-x232.google.com (mail-oi1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::232]) (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 D3D3B120052 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x232.google.com with SMTP id l203so9875716oia.3 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:12:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bn+qTUsAP8ztDwm4ecEE/Aqi1fs4ELqDxwKMUcjniC8=; b=eeniZkAy1RXvkxSEINX3IIIRA0en6ROmS78GdGcolEB0rCb1Q925odi0HGiuv3BFKx 4tju20ZMWpSIVNTtvj6LooemzbUPxlQ3nDFQ32joQf8FEhW0EHFjtZtwBvcmnKgPL9OK 0C3ZZdx6t4WBvXQrU3Gl6bE2y39snqxxV4RhZqKPqpLRjiuY9JJ1h1N9A2ZAK8eXMONQ 7zWo/kJHdxBVuvusroTN+7Nmw1Fb5hvREJ21BRWDkUL6PggvbD7ju9UsMIBnF6DKjw5G 1O+PgFAQY6QlbS8e8qtfv4yxQea8CtnqLm37wVSlmRgxMbnPdygltGH/HKq7EIaMK5H+ 7p8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bn+qTUsAP8ztDwm4ecEE/Aqi1fs4ELqDxwKMUcjniC8=; b=lU7Qij53M13jzC6LeFioUxQIbmh7e0giKoCLiaSOYJZKH4xcabFUgp60wetDshyVYy sFIDsZ/OmUdT05SoIyQ7mIq5bZwpsT3CAYw3YxPfPCnxo9HKzfJYZcXnmndMtzsrgd8i /2Sn8FmSG7UF6Wd4rj6Oj3mq1KKPBE763ua2JizvYSu0b64zvb44RZ14wMsqbhh1Unxe YW+48as+/C3n+WNpm9LOQkIWkVNvrtP4uOgUNZl3bq1psf1La7dnVxGdTYTsH4pIMf7r uUSHePIm//1ikqgS3UGV+fS6uA3xnYZlr4dT2GVKpdzyBK5sOUrrFuBMgh9mNW3UkDLO oMXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUVEpTcxExsHNKZitIIymDnvxsy092F+BU718Ho6mO4nJngRaHs fRfnGPmwmmXx1gaFAkam0J8ABK6EE7nzei0zNm5Nyw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxDL4ygcssq9QNrn2ACvWCi89S7QEikGFSs9Db3ANRwzz5MyfB1HVKazSW2rtAab5K9ynmi2KvA0MSi6D+1l9Y= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:307:: with SMTP id i7mr1214616oie.60.1556583150990; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:12:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <22774.1556560887@localhost> In-Reply-To: From: Mark Smith Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:12:19 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05 To: Philip Homburg Cc: 6man WG , Michael Richardson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c74d120587b4418d" Archived-At: X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org 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: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:12:33 -0000 --000000000000c74d120587b4418d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue., 30 Apr. 2019, 04:32 Philip Homburg, wrote: > >I think that the objectors have been rather few, have been unreasonably > loud > >and very repetitive. > > Here is the opinion of operators at the RIPE meeting last fall: > https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2335/ > Reactions at 5:38 > How many have read the draft? Should they be making judgement and we accept judgement based on a short and single presentation by somebody who has a bias against it? Have they seen a presentation from somebody who is for it? > Of course in true tradition of the IETF, operator input is mostly ignored. > I think this is approaching an appeal to authority. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > --000000000000c74d120587b4418d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue., 30 Apr. 2019, 04:32 Philip Homburg, <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
>I think that the objectors have been rather few, have= been unreasonably loud
>and very repetitive.=C2=A0

Here is the opinion of operators at the RIPE meeting last fall:
https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/v= ideo/2335/
Reactions at 5:38

<= div dir=3D"auto">
How man= y have read the draft?

Should the= y be making judgement and we accept judgement based on a short and single p= resentation by somebody who has a bias against it?

Have they seen a presentation from somebody who is for it= ?

<= div dir=3D"auto">

Of course in true tradition of the IETF, operator input is mostly ignored.<= br>

I= think this is approaching an appeal to authority.
<= br>




--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www= .ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--000000000000c74d120587b4418d--