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

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 13 February 2017 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 E33B912956B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:19:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 0kiN3a6wqVot for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:19:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADBF2129568 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:19:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC44049; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:19:28 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:date:subject :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-type:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1486981166; bh=Gt/UYu+TBXbTz3DJu9H rmS26dmLGsIybUqP9iktXvaQ=; b=IwY5AtC+a4RGdC0PAzAyDgSMcBnDnJTF9OW fAHsVJVcp3R+x6ibkHkdgV082Z/2aiwQ9WCfAyNmCu8SzD8sYbr9cEatct6MHMJi usfVajV1vmlgr7aF6bVmCpiXXa9TY5VqBWsvw//ZMGiMA3NauzfJbfaSBZeJUf9c uWKkEYP0=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 2vjYeqGs_Sf3; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:19:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.0.149] (unknown [46.44.175.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 995C148; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:19:26 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4F3DC5CC-1096-42DA-A237-4CD83CBE1765"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:19:23 +0100
References: <C9FDAEB9-9F79-4186-9C48-5F44E5E07235@gmail.com> <1be095d0-8165-b127-9dbb-5a9d06d7d141@gmail.com> <3F1A2F45-CD1D-4E66-85E7-CC331A78A160@employees.org> <5ff7c3e2-c450-ded4-d68b-e73d0b416364@gmail.com> <95381DDF-9261-4EC9-9626-DB6F9F494729@employees.org> <87e01949-0fd6-816c-680c-d7d0eb88ae74@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <87e01949-0fd6-816c-680c-d7d0eb88ae74@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <443F56D9-C358-431F-8A42-C46F24E0E3A1@steffann.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/q8LAKTmKcAfJfJZhLJfvINhPscw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:19:34 -0000

Hi Brian,

> It just seems obvious to me that this isn't a question that belongs in the WG process.
> It's got nothing to do with the technical content of the document.

I fully agree. The text explicitly starts with "Fernando Gont would like to thank" which makes it clear that this is a personal thing from one of the authors, not something representing working group consensus.

> If it was a technical issue, I would of course agree violently. But it's cosmetic,
> so why on earth would the WG even care?

I fully agree. The document is a working group document, but Fernando has put a lot of work in it on behalf of this working group. That that same working group is now criticising him for adding an innocent bit of personal text in the acknowledgements doesn't feel right to me. Why would we need consensus on a explicitly personal acknowledgement anyway?

Cheers,
Sander

PS: Random Stream of consciousness: Where has the IETF gone where people worked together to do cool stuff, where April fools RFCs and Shakespeare quotes were appreciated? It feels so hostile at the moment, and that is worrying me. I hope we can all relax a bit, appreciate each other's work and opinions and focus on improving this cool internet thing we have engineered!