IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@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 B80873A091A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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] 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 4snUd3ggfUOI for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com (mail-pl1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) (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 DAA533A0912 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id x11so1207974plv.9 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Elf8XwT3MkVvXFnnVwNDFsj4XjGB0WuLx5OlROAL8PQ=; b=EUNi8XU68F32UkiIzMf1lpQWRajHV+OGqfH/oSnyRZO1zqpYzhfo0bCxY7wDHT1yI4 hsL2tJAePoC9mC6dH2oVmyJ9qwzUXoPhdix6K7c/GKbcFfhky54xRSgwBGfqTPtW6QUB 8rdyXKAo4jZu3I1eSZ9tdYe1kfBRDFKMP+xpuNdYZVyBlvprXxL6zJ1yaTiSv4JJqmri rDyqaPZY0YxXdWvtUGsONmKGcsDU48PNEnIfAPkRMVg/M+xhcK9cjtLGUxwv85QPbWXE iZ7sLpDffK3gdP+j4UHJe2PYYPFwkHzQHQeUloa8ekh9mxh2kHnKwKbjZhfzyzqSK/Xo fn3g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Elf8XwT3MkVvXFnnVwNDFsj4XjGB0WuLx5OlROAL8PQ=; b=rDM0n224Lo1ZAVbIDmQWWXzIpmiA5DnbMQEoQ3ci78CXa9QUy+VdLNg4rfz/kvVPGo imVpKaZD4378qw1fjRBlUaGqb9Ab2TufgIWNJJzFEMpTR6+YsCu1fNqWxNPNSnhpwVEa VW5wZ5I9Di2vFGpi+3VmgcECeJ9jRuuOIrGIMQy/RUNROl5NYXou27tIbVDvRUnmWj/Q OPYwpU7pZoI5hI+JSHqgQoujtSbHnT5Ge0xtd03vWDdW0Cn9AQsiVoKYq3zKLa8v1fV3 yAvU6oDPp4rXZC0iNRRBi9gpYnS9601YI97Fj8NB+f/QSpmmh6MMhLlQHWbcQPJATheQ YPPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530sQfhWeHAlIqlQIDgRlZb3yYbc9giUM3bWaDPqCU4g60SILqpn up2pyi3vHCv+B+HmUtQdGX8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyrD2U8E/X8B9rmAm/AGKhV0Qn2sTA9jW/yyfsolSCWL7r9sxi2hEmzG5wMI6TVrPQMg4sKEw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:50e:: with SMTP id r14mr7698442pjz.13.1590762035378; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from freds-mbp.lan (ip68-111-231-227.sd.sd.cox.net. [68.111.231.227]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ep10sm7524644pjb.25.2020.05.29.07.20.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 May 2020 07:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <53AACAD4-5A84-481D-983E-FC2CB04DB893@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_473B4754-CE06-4871-90AF-76133F0737A0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
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?
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 07:20:32 -0700
In-Reply-To: <70CDD965-C9B4-4A15-9ACA-FFE685D97129@gmail.com>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@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> <70CDD965-C9B4-4A15-9ACA-FFE685D97129@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qwcskAApq4RLyhAvqbvz0laD2yc>
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 14:20:38 -0000


> On May 29, 2020, at 7:17 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

So your point is that this entire discussion needs to wait until we meet f2f?

I think, in fairness, we have done quite a bit on email, and check things discussed f2f on email.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email