IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Fri, 17 December 2010 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C8B3A6B42 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:59:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.489, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g56GfdZ9NiEf for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:59:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com (e4.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.144]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D2F3A6B3D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:59:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.85]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id oBHDi498026482 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:44:09 -0500
Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50BF64DE803B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:59:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id oBHE1RSC117258 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:01:27 -0500
Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id oBHE1QtX001979 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:01:26 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-197-196.mts.ibm.com [9.65.197.196]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id oBHE1OVd001382 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:01:25 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id oBHE1MjU004996; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:01:23 -0500
Message-Id: <201012171401.oBHE1MjU004996@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls
In-reply-to: <51DDC1AB-6FB7-42A0-AC48-D8B883B871D4@cisco.com>
References: <4D0A19C0.4020409@innovationslab.net> <005701cb9d2d$556395b0$002ac110$@sturek@att.net> <5A0C0340-98D7-4ED1-8CD8-335D610EC9B2@cisco.com> <201012171241.oBHCfh5e003040@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <51DDC1AB-6FB7-42A0-AC48-D8B883B871D4@cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> message dated "Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:36:28 -0800."
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:01:22 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
Cc: 'Brian Haberman' <brian@innovationslab.net>, 'IPv6 WG Mailing List' <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 17 Dec 2010 13:59:43 -0000

> The fact is that the working group is trying to decide n something
>  and Zigbee has relevant data. I'm simply asking for an
>  appropriately-redacted version of the report to be made public.

Works for me. I just didn't want anyone to think this was a IETF
*requirement*.

Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email