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

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 C464A3A0915 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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=boeing.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 JvyuSl2FkGMU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CBE63A0C3F for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 04TEDkVh011383; Fri, 29 May 2020 10:13:46 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1590761626; bh=F4bCq/nhME8v80rf7ztsscGlLI7QCtPjHJtxbwBDoDY=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=U0awaqf1mV8W0wpTQfa1lr4EPGy76BomyaKbjiml1PpRG97D3i99BrJPR8yU+N6+V bGoyLdS+vN4j3IBrxJ0dNu3SjA4Yduz3C2ihrCm9nJ558uaIwNbmQCjeDaCvvSQXH3 RdoIG02O/4LqkHKigAG5+pUP4svYYD/O9rDnnNfLmccOvA8pg6arRx1/zJ72pdxhId a/+DfXyoiR2k44E5m4VoWZ9s3xH3Ev33VTxioMAMCU+xD1qq8d5ZqSG5FciOiVMnsT J4LVugkN5gGgJtzpKaRhv1qSLl7In8hd77FCx9BdtFmlwxtQPSsPhcuKQm02qqokdP XGCP1Gp4evTOw==
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-10.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.112]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 04TEDVDh009198 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 29 May 2020 10:13:31 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1979.3; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:13:30 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:13:30 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
CC: 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
Thread-Topic: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
Thread-Index: AQHWNOJwrT7wA6MSxUq0TPCOwZJLuqi9aJAAgAGl+ICAAAkPAIAAA7wA
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 14:13:30 +0000
Message-ID: <cb505b05d97d457a8bb58d0fbbebdb1c@boeing.com>
References: <CAO42Z2xDygUXTGwVunGSTMkZGMF8VePrPaXLSAJg14vAJdca5A@mail.gmail.com> <6DB604C0-2C29-44A8-AB01-DA697552C7DA@employees.org> <1C1F0496-33A8-4646-B356-369EA9ABAD33@gmail.com> <DM6PR05MB6348501B266FF51DD805C25DAE8F0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB6348501B266FF51DD805C25DAE8F0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: A99F2BC9F571E148F08953F7449835E5DAD41BCEB31817C2ED872B586E1EA49F2000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/fxX4hRuAnb79_C5qtrGYxr2SsM8>
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, 29 May 2020 14:14:16 -0000

Ron, yes and there are considerable new markets developing. Communications
service for worldwide air and ground transportation will be an enormous area
for new growth in this decade. And, conservation of scarce bandwidth at end
systems with low-end and/or congested wireless media will be a pivotal factor.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 6:59 AM
> To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>om>; Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
> Cc: 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
> 
> Stewart,
> 
> Generally speaking, the market understands its requirement better than the IETF. Why not let both proceed?
> 
> The market understands its requirements and it will choose wisely.
> 
>                                                                                Ron
> 
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 9:22 AM
> To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
> Cc: 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> In the past when such issues have arisen a special session has been called at IETF to work out a way forward.
> 
> I am not sure how well this would work in a virtual meeting, but it would seem to be an appropriate solution here.
> 
> Normal outcomes are pick A, pick B or let both go forward and let the market decide. Although the IETF generally dislikes it,
> sometimes the later is the only way to get out of the corner.
> 
> There are various ways of adopting the third option such as setting one text as informational.
> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 
> 
> > On 28 May 2020, at 13:11, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> >
> > Segment Routing (CRH, SRH and friends) isn't something 6man has traditionally dealt with.
> > We have been more concerned about IPv6 in the open Internet, end to end, and not so much of technologies only applicable within
> a controlled domain.
> >
> > From that perspective, it is not surprising that this work attracts a different participant-set than before.
> >
> > It seems that a proxy war is being fought out in the working group.
> > With both opponents and proponents of proposals closely aligned along company borders.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ole, with the dystopian hat on.
> >
> >
> >> On 28 May 2020, at 13:23, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've been an active participant in the ipng, 6man and v6ops IETF working groups since 2002.
> >>
> >> While I've only been to one IETF meeting in person since then (106, sponsored by the Internet Society), over that time I've come to
> recognise the names of many of the regular and active participants in these IPv6 working groups.
> >>
> >> I do not recognise many of the names of people who are objecting to the 6man working group adopting the CRH draft.
> >>
> >> Those who have been active 6man participants in recent years would know that even an ID adopted by 6man, written by Bob and
> Brian, that had a number of revisions, didn't survive WG last call, and that occurred while Bob was (as he still is) one of the 6man WG
> chairs.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Mark.
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> ipv6@ietf.org
> >> Administrative Requests: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!V1-
> LQ6p9QKqjeldG4s-lSwAr7iyRJN13wDX9K_q5nuOotWe2pPMTG87pandUTgzj$
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!V1-
> LQ6p9QKqjeldG4s-lSwAr7iyRJN13wDX9K_q5nuOotWe2pPMTG87pandUTgzj$
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!V1-
> LQ6p9QKqjeldG4s-lSwAr7iyRJN13wDX9K_q5nuOotWe2pPMTG87pandUTgzj$
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------