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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@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 B34D33A0912 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_FROM=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 WVUojfeXsj1J for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32c.google.com (mail-wm1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32c]) (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 A53A73A090F for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id r9so3494172wmh.2 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/ehfMnH/Gli7j6id1v0LPj7Mva12Ew3Wzl+1hKkUI54=; b=RfMbVc9KEBhkCHQVcTFp+xvTYB0RyBjnJyiMwNkKaATFsrWgQLT2q0BBbshGYlfpEH NeTkvjtDEb4zOx8ojKzLSd4ySumxbRiKv0DNBjR9SkGw2PBPQvqf5pva/KixH7nr+P4S QHrs7DOF6TqsZxQ5YIcLO+56zsrJot90ABv8fjx78Y8oFMgTZpl7X3kZu6JggOQXH0vb acPoER0MMJF7MoBrGCJlPzf9c5iEMP7NvzFu3bXUr/QBVmRgQBtzjZD7kKimyYLQCPwW 2PIMdv9jj4rUYP5/2Cpmi1ZbZrbApeL3M+uRecaeQ1s/UXgurO2s3Ye+H/MwgVn9fXyj 9Idg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=/ehfMnH/Gli7j6id1v0LPj7Mva12Ew3Wzl+1hKkUI54=; b=ZRQHqQYnIr73UbKYKOsFeAwZnEMHffgkmi+3WkLpPbcHtHybpGmwEcQ3Wm5nO/Oi+f sQlfiisnOmP7GiV7IZVV5D3v/5SQEsQbjVkmwJi5mbUOFVntcmAytegnCuYWUo2suj8z nuG7YzuLkOVLA+n1Kbl/lnxdbUdzpofOOleHLJB3yRyb/jGF7mw6yUMDHpxJYcWuC4zH XZbyK5yjSl+yAiii7RmBxLnciorFWhRR8U9mwiq8+6raHxnaYtktwVAfWc3DPD9TCKGW owRf5L/TLtzFr9yKg/tyuopoAWsxZt+ltPJNfTzHcvURx03rM61J9BGAo5u8ig090LMx uN3Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532CUEEjB3FrwSGyIOeBlkCi9B0R2R8PoiRJNwc2dHR/W0vrkqPE tUor9Mu0DXPHrpugrtDp7UI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy+4q7dJF3Gg5ZHsYZPqA/W4g2U/qcPbJ/hFGnyiJrfPHVYZNdwrQOAG5Ce3eQaDcMMrFEczA==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:5a82:: with SMTP id o124mr8609427wmb.188.1590761889099; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.46] ([62.3.64.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q1sm10300791wmc.12.2020.05.29.07.18.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 May 2020 07:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB6348501B266FF51DD805C25DAE8F0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 15:17:37 +0100
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <70CDD965-C9B4-4A15-9ACA-FFE685D97129@gmail.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>
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/li-ZWQzugI3Of9wxCrxxZdAgLK0>
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 14:18:13 -0000

Ron,

That is clearly a possible outcome that the IETF could choose, and I would not disagree if that was the consensus position.

My main point was that a list discussion of this type rarely reaches an acceptable outcome, and that an objective discussion at IETF is normally a better approach. Indeed resolving issues like this is exactly why we meet F2F at IETF.

- Stewart

> On 29 May 2020, at 14:58, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> 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$
> --------------------------------------------------------------------