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

Adrian Farrel <> Thu, 28 May 2020 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A881D3A0F97 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VujvWnPH5tQX for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AE533A0E32 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 08:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 04SFx7wn017599; Thu, 28 May 2020 16:59:07 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900D822042; Thu, 28 May 2020 16:59:06 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AF1522040; Thu, 28 May 2020 16:59:06 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 04SFx5tv017079 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 May 2020 16:59:06 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: <>
Cc: "'6MAN'" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 16:59:05 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <08b801d63508$eaa8cd70$bffa6850$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHSdRJedh32/T6jTqDRkFaw7UtgXQJ8f4uaAdW6fToCqggWxQHvlj+rAp7QvGioaNDDYA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--3.269-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--3.269-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--3.269000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: oHOSwQSJZWi+cA2OBw2FFkagGCqY7nc561si1F9mlXbaOIP2b6ZfXyTf jWxGHAXbZd/L7D024DQZo/nu8+2daMjzWV8MkngpKJYo5K4P1qTgHhCN7Wx4VSHji1Rf3pHQUS0 xEYUYNYPKCU4EWFZxEaVlh7fJjPaxs0kzHQs8hd6VUcz8XpiS9FsP0tBwe3qD7NHW7GyDY/WD/m A2vw4bvYKVDlqDBtrFFpm6aAcED0JJsXlZ77gLELKe1KMOtvrh4NNiN6MhlPD8kFwgcyoo4Zybn AcAiqR4d7u95qKW5nukIUOFajMU+ghqh+u1IaR7N19PjPJahlJlrH9TaQ6uQYVquVYFwXAm+27B MA0aaDDsWWL2TcF6TE7DOcNFPyaawsZtKo32enQNwUVhIF6pVp4oEP/S42Q2wfH2XZhguhA8U5K 6Ww2SDN1MCYJynNUuy5PqnJRFA+HlRxm3A2wKujl/1fD/GopdyJ1gFgOMhOmLZAVphLW/bSq2rl 3dzGQ1DBbGvtcMofynySsYDJJCD9gPU3IKgx9vK0rdVFnGThZQfy0PonvjnaWzOkASuC1u+pcvv 2KQUFNMhSh4SzBe+ZksbYULVa+jvZGTZ/gKh0Ul4nVYwIRGQa1+3JijYrAOMqmhG/M0o4/0MHwz u2JowH/sHqJVh3aulExlQIQeRG0=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 15:59:17 -0000

Two ways to de-escalate this, Ole, would be:

1. Don't imply that everyone stating an opinion is doing so because they are
following a company line. If you make such statements then you discourage
people from expressing their independent opinions.

2. Don't say anything that could be taken to be an opinion on an appeal that
is in progress and implies that the appellants are doing anything other than
a true and honest appeal.

Sometimes being a WG chair is a no-win situation, and I think everyone
respects the job you do. But you can avoid shooting yourself if you're


-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <> On Behalf Of
Sent: 28 May 2020 16:37
To: Nick Hilliard <>
Cc: 6MAN <>
Subject: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?

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

As far as I can tell this behaviour started with the adoption of the SRH
document and has continued ever since.
The SR-PGM appeal is another example of collateral damage.

It's the Karpman drama triangle playing out.

> 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.

How though, is the difficult part. Trying to mediate leads to being dragged
into the conflict, accused of taking sides and losing credibility.

Best regards,
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: