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

Fred Baker <> Wed, 22 February 2017 01:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D361294CE for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:25:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 4gh6CJ8LfZbW for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB9C31294C1 for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b129so44312167pgc.2 for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:25:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nqIXZG28cVmphoBfk0jHwTkc8JKV0VmXjmf6VkMqZgg=; b=HWIIOy2uyVAqa9tzwfKQlKsL0yznS6CKN3UWcK0CiFYCQ16ZBOLqizCwQ/hcyHaeTe /PxJ6nGWVBPYcE2yZdoRVeGGcXGgdbtZJnhwcNJmWuERnIAWLMJKJU5NQtv97fLDnTQE kgPSG25lFstizH0t5ZK2RNPB/6aD2w0uFIjn1b8ONE6NuJVOTUz156tnJ/wTJgrMRj4v mMkajyAU2qdaBfAcEpKaZzuq59yvI+DW0kQwRpdFqLa4Nh9difr6Eyg7zEEULFEDq7GC hy20kE3Kl7zbLsjydbPtC4yGHKxmlBmpQ1lEwoWBEwu/aIz6TlD1C5ln/cxtD6+2X3jT aDiw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nqIXZG28cVmphoBfk0jHwTkc8JKV0VmXjmf6VkMqZgg=; b=RJv7oaLw5kpGXkXBopHwtAws6Kbt3JKxevvh93KUQM3fuBjuObJH3QVZBSNsA6TW/Q 1HQHswUPaENrA07Elz/eYTwR0CrTlO3q5LQvLeoXL837/T90pNt54/tUHJKXfcfIZagQ JKUWHIB/o9T/yr5mUYtv3JZG+VsKkRQM1mzEkTIbv2+oZCqTJwv8P0qfqdK7Dt69f7wh YXAwg4DB1A6H1Nfz5kLz4J9SBjxxm0ZHkAxCWfG11/9GufvGQITrUdByUNUpvmaiHpmf f6o0Egp7Rak788fG9tGbwoPfN7DXnKHEqZ79n1xxmKXCrXMoYG3C2+TGKk4glm74eT0w bkWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ljMNlHiKGzj2oKDXXuDqaUZYDuUe2qcHAjpTuA/vAgS1Pg58TRHbvUKBl13U4DSg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 20mr38782025pgb.53.1487726757291; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 2sm43098732pfv.100.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:25:56 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
From: Fred Baker <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:25:55 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Fernando Gont <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>, Robert Hinden <>, Suresh Krishnan <>
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: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 01:25:59 -0000

On Feb 21, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Fernando Gont <> wrote:
> Is a statement like "I do not support" *without any rationale* of value?

I think it's a fact. People, myself among them, said they didn't support it. The discussion, or at least most of it, was public.

I'll repeat my rationale. If one is filing an individual submission, and especially one through the independent stream, I suppose one can say in it pretty much what one wants. If we're discussing a working group draft, we are documenting the consensus of a working group. I don't recall the working group reviewing an acknowledgement of the members of a family or a particular Argentine athlete (Diego Maradona); that text came in without review or consensus during AUTH48. Further, if one reviews the ~8000 RFCs that have already made it through the mill, none come to mind that contain such an acknowledgement. The people acknowledged in RFCs are people who commented on or otherwise made some contribution to the document.

Speaking for myself, I think the acknowledgement is out of place in a working group product, especially if there is no obvious consensus supporting it. Bob ran a poll, and reports the consensus as he perceives it. As working group chair he is empowered to determine what that consensus is. From my perspective, his report on that is the end of the discussion, not a data point in the middle of it, nor the start of a new one. That's his job, and the power we give him.