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

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Thu, 14 May 2020 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@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 418FB3A098C; Thu, 14 May 2020 07:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 jPu4FVeEB3UP; Thu, 14 May 2020 07:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb31.google.com (mail-yb1-xb31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b31]) (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 6F1323A0B09; Thu, 14 May 2020 07:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb31.google.com with SMTP id r128so863124ybc.6; Thu, 14 May 2020 07:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=9xiYjOKGeRbwjnRH+UvCpS1NCjz1X5mQmEKVw1625Jw=; b=MbybeiUG7dMUs6JxKQEKG3PaAnzzjwygdYWnVOvScUdAfaapBn8Vk6v9QWfDdk4WUg YyVGEXPde+dqdd4lfVSvACmMt3kZj9Svb9Ajo8xau3BvOrrWjUyBEubjpBkY+BQ30rP1 N9KTp6l8TRXnuJJGAFAiXjjEw8caVMmMBGLYlNbbFcduHjzK5DUz+x/zHnveZuBsNYF/ J6mqCsGRnTLQGVPPKwzETfkmZpPlFZXrrVYjf1OYdXQgFdemzxskza8PWoZ8tF0OLYwX 5WrIuuDbNj12n8+ruSw36okVsfjOwHz8ysRxZgx1th8KocsjJXGxZY/EycYJ1lbzFSWK Ic4A==
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:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9xiYjOKGeRbwjnRH+UvCpS1NCjz1X5mQmEKVw1625Jw=; b=TsmjMRQ1uwl/z5Jj4EIGgIJsttc4Naw8N00bw7rF+nMbUSZdvgxbsRnTbM1IagHi5V oYyNn7kiMs6YLVtDjtzDpLem4Qjs6UvJvzK2p92dxZu2m3/zZw9yXpNTZybsSNLNs4B3 Q9AGKfv9dBmheSlnfsdL3AlIx2iQX7a7Ub8Rj+OttcCt3PRbyN8+OygLV8WcEHPEHkLK U+1t40IlwqPI/dFeGfPxScnEKK2GGKkHW1ULCXraGE6GsHxcaT2hEDBjRtGY6sgct6Og Mo9lXygRE/ZqXRYdFbbxCu1WBYPgzMJz5ntGqwwEOl+XteyU7urOzrI7xX/RhvOT00rE ZPPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533CoZ7sNnG4aRl9vn74UKZCWeraXnft9oQFjXPZqPj6CXDBqq0L kQ+WbLJn7RfryxP0bRpxHXFwqP4s/KgmkDT5opo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzuFLW+2Ulb55xFZjbSqmLNHf80TWZQVpJoB5PU9NaF+BCJzEAVqtVaO6v7RwLzqlEUXoAgg4Vzl1zsGaJKKvY=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:b09b:: with SMTP id f27mr7207958ybj.411.1589467398315; Thu, 14 May 2020 07:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM6PR05MB6348E9AD1E088792C2F10BB4AEBF0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8CC3F837-B4D6-4570-AF2F-37041839F391@employees.org> <21E9A957-1A31-4A11-8E78-5F7E382866D4@juniper.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20200513133654.0f5815d8@elandnews.com> <2782613A-0D2B-4F62-AD73-EA41928F6E32@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2782613A-0D2B-4F62-AD73-EA41928F6E32@gmail.com>
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 09:43:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAccRN=zqMYis=YqoRy+=fFeAKCavZX32pJFXoRi5hLQDCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a8a25105a59cb7bf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/eXvQGrvlxm7m6Xx0URYoh18mcDo>
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: Thu, 14 May 2020 14:43:21 -0000

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:03 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > On May 13, 2020, at 1:52 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear 6MAN Working Chairs,
> >
> > During the last 6MAN, there was a comment about the Working Chair about
> it being too early to have an adoption call for
> draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr.  Could the Working Chairs please provide
> some information about their decision as there isn't any information about
> that in the minutes?
>
> We were asked about this and said we didn’t have an answer.  We are
> working on this.
>
> >
> > I could not find the attendance list for the working group meeting which
> was held on May 5.  Isn't it an IETF requirement to publish that
> information?
>
> The bluesheet was published right after the meeting.  See:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2020-6man-02/session/6man
>
>

When I joined there were 60+ people in the call but only app 43  of them
signed up.

Regards,
Behcet

> Bob
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > S. Moonesamy
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>