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

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Thu, 28 May 2020 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 307193A0F3F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 07:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gRSHI9gb7HOP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 07:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B93573A0F25 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 07:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: 6man@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 04SEuAP7017425 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 May 2020 15:56:11 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Subject: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Cc: 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
References: <8A5DB52F-5355-484D-8E70-02247C2DF88E@bell.ca> <4FE8C14C-421D-45D5-A1DE-D48E66AAC652@bell.ca> <VI1PR03MB5056782F1E77C7B5D22A8B9FEE8E0@VI1PR03MB5056.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <0bf27e50f7e346cd86d7b25faba75554@boeing.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <202d9944-5f32-dd0f-cc0e-c57a7783eedd@foobar.org>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 15:56:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.17
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0bf27e50f7e346cd86d7b25faba75554@boeing.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9B841D67104B7B0DB4ADD786"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mbvL59ne7y3Zqu7gkxLN37Jcfi8>
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: Thu, 28 May 2020 14:56:26 -0000

+1 on this.  Also, hats off to Ole for explicitly acknowledging that 
this is a vendor proxy war.

As an independent operator of services, I find it disappointing and 
thoroughly distasteful to see representatives from otherwise reputable 
vendors engage in a protocol assassination attempt for what are very 
obviously political reasons.

This is abusive and damaging to the IETF,  to the development of useful 
building-block technologies, and serves to act directly against the 
interests of technology consumers.  It needs to stop.

Nick

Templin (US), Fred L wrote on 28/05/2020 15:29:
>
> Well said.
>
> *From:* Andrew Alston [mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 7:26 AM
> *To:* Bernier, Daniel <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>ca>; Voyer, Daniel 
> <daniel.voyer@bell.ca>ca>; Templin (US), Fred L 
> <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>om>; otroan@employees.org; Mark Smith 
> <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* RE: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
>
> Not proposing any such thing.
>
> Am questioning if we are seeing a growth in participation – or a 
> blatant stacking of the floor with people who have never set foot on 
> the lists and will never will again.
>
> Similar to the floor of +1’s we saw on something else a while back – 
> where – once I took the list of all of them – and ran through an 
> analytics script – had never posted to any archive I could find – and 
> have never posted since.
>
> Encourage participation – yes – encourage blatant floor stacking for 
> the purpose of saying “I support this” and disappearing into the 
> woodwork – no – there is a big difference
>
> Andrew
>
>