Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48

神明達哉 <> Mon, 13 February 2017 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABA3129793 for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:14:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJekYkzof_GU for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:14:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD5E612973E for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:14:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v23so90732047qtb.0 for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:14:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WhXqncB3NTy2kCyPVeZFcjbyFAvjjO1NjF/iP5S7NUY=; b=HCK92j70RPnTDyBpcTgTKTeGtcMWuNguOQcjdqW36fyeiIjfMq2CX5Tkuun5BeXdeI XzzrY/rTcT4fRfXNEnW4AQ+l/LNh3gSxBhsVqwH6qYeoDo9D1ywWpDYu/DEMUoad7oDI CM0f27q0Erp2ETCbmD95sbtMCH1fpkxGWqLp9rc260nbWhp+RpASrMstRBtxzB5kzTqK 2oQ8UlbBP7YYzkasNsEjYfyDnpK0f1kjQlWXnLHUP15C/8g35KlekiS4Rbqgx2WoU4wH B9EBBJsMxHNfiQiqlAnX/DuoSmHRDYlyMkQA7FGaNYoKz8/5ZSnury2SCASlADI3I/qM +EAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WhXqncB3NTy2kCyPVeZFcjbyFAvjjO1NjF/iP5S7NUY=; b=Og+pH+hrZ8QH+BG+aaiQz706b3262FsusQmq5wtO76Dch1JVvvvEaeeZW2nSKRep82 hfesG11OYrYpswtca/z5jp0Iz8QDUvYMIDawOe7L6YVHNlqqeIsukE4sGX/X6tbTQYoD g8iLQWeF+iHO0Hft2HfG9eTcgA9c3bxqrz1yn/EwededJpG9qIfFokVagmo49Z/Hks2w ILXchCa3ve7VKBJNQPLw8N9t7sBlTxq70WjLefVIf+4wdCucobmLissvxW6keZ19+1Dq 8ruRcoS05rNhSPjIOLyVqyiI/2k0Ke31CVwg1/w8e2RfZPvYq+3mZikUpLhhjT0dXi3e QC4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mtsyiiv5eOHkYM2l+KR/q7qpuPFAxNKDv/h/ZA4F5OD+rgx9d3OtpPTSEooDRoZJc2qv9wD5/8xExFuQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id d20mr22455066qtb.220.1487009676793; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:14:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:14:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:14:36 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AXnp-z33_835swUbrdlfjAbRvxk
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
To: Bob Hinden <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IPv6 List <>
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: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:14:39 -0000

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Bob Hinden <> wrote:

>    Fernando Gont would like to thank Nelida Garcia and Guillermo Daniel
>    Gont for their love and support, and Jorge Oscar Gont and Diego
>    Armando Maradona for their inspiration.
> Some of the other authors don’t think this change is appropriate for
> AUTH48, but the author proposing this has insisted on adding this
> text.
> Please respond with either support or non-support for this proposed
> change by 18 February 2017.  I think it is unfortunate to add extra
> delay over this change, but after consulting with our AD, I think
> the best course is to ask the working group.

Regarding this particular inquiry, I generally agree with Brian:
neither of the following seems to be something that the wg should
bother in the first place:
- whether the added text is appropriate for RFCs
- whether making this particular change to this particular document at
  AUTH48 is acceptable

But, the following point made me think it may be a bit subtler than my
initial and general observation:

At Sun, 12 Feb 2017 21:42:42 -0500,
Alissa Cooper <> wrote:

>> Subsequent to sending message 2, I learned that this is at least the
>> 10th document in which Fernando has inserted similar acknowledgment
>> text during AUTH48.

If this is true (I didn't check it myself), I think it's reasonable to
ask whether the author doesn't exploit the AUTH48 stage to add some
specific text with avoiding possible discussions on the text at the wg
or with the IESG.  Even if the text itself is minor or even considered
not part of the wg/IETF business, an attitude that might look like
hiding a secret motivation from the process wouldn't be appreciated,
as it might make those authors look less trustworthy in general.  In
that sense, I think it's fair to say the text in question should have
been in drafts while they were discussed in the wg.

Again, for this particular case, I don't think I'm a right person to
say support or non-support.

JINMEI, Tatuya