Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48 Sun, 12 February 2017 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A319129A42 for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:19:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 43iLMQ7u7Ws2 for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:19:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F711129A49 for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:19:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2017 20:19:31 +0000
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9772D788E; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:19:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=Roi7NtFlEuBne8JowiXzoFtpIzY=; b= NMqIleBJZ0tesclkO1n4jat6rfw/r1WV0aEKhdditdFX6guO/pFvYj90gvvCRvyP MIeZhL3VTV1M1mlnn7lripwGVFHxEiB1S9rnSb+N2bP5z+zNhoNuGnYG9fUxw2aF TNJwWE6Ln5AeOjvZNG1cTZFICynCRDYskBigW3eMEHk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=i5osW7RQS91BWiaT6SB3BjR n/v4R6iZrx5ChlbySDgb2rrfNkcQy9DFIXWg07iVxbS+KKd9Xne8hFuKBKbffHeP NfqZliIDJIJdpzksfKsotaitz/AFeGFp+tSyyi/SjT+pXeBYoyHBQSx8L+/VkaYh 2KIP7nzQrfxVAMD/CYCA=
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BE3DD788B; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:19:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201F4899BE79; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 21:19:28 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A3893ABE-AEB3-4551-A0C3-A8B32729D1FF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 21:19:27 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:19:34 -0000


> I don't think this is a WG matter and I don't think it's the IETF's business
> either. It seems to me that this matter is in the scope of the RFC Editor to
> decide, if the authors can't, since it's about the style and contents of an RFC.
> IMHO, it has nothing to do with its technical content or with the fact that
> it's an IETF stream document.

What makes you think that?
Is that described in RFC process somewhere?

From RFC7221:
      REMINDER:  Once a working group adopts a draft, the document is owned
      by the working group and can be changed however the working group
      decides, within the bounds of IETF process and the working group
      charter.  Absent explicit agreement, adopting a document does not
      automatically mean that the working group has agreed to all of its
      content.  So a working group (or its charter) might explicitly
      dictate the basis for retaining, removing, or modifying some or
      all of a draft's content, technical details, or the like.
      However, in the absence of such constraints, it is worth having
      the adoption process include a sub-process of gathering working
      group concerns about the existing draft and flagging them
      It is a responsibility of the Working Group Chairs to ensure that
      document authors make modifications in accord with working group
      rough consensus.  Authors/editors are solely chosen by the Chairs
      -- although the views of the working group should be considered --
      and are subject to replacement for a variety of reasons, as the
      Chairs see fit.

The document is the output of the working group.
While the authors have some flexibility during AUTH48 under the guidance of the RFC Editor, ADs and document shepherd, it is certainly not the place to add personal messages. The editors of a working document are expected to represent the working group.

Best regards,