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

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Tue, 21 February 2017 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 E9243129C86 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:43:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 oFRKoD9vqJh8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (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 793131294E7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 65so9724136oig.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:43:35 -0800 (PST)
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=94PlSPHUiu5g6UVj/C9ahXGedWZcX5U4JR7cYVt4cjw=; b=NPHHi+NCbXNekMe6Clhi0iG2bDWQWURVfbZpK0VawKbmc7yJv988kJeFk+M8fpJy2P yPTAtssNoQH6q+fLw1V1YeBah6PmxNuitWXsDvyjgAsqiR1dPFm6Kxqxy1ZNwnulKHem 10/oVBJuG2bRjZRuvpEsDRKqw946QZ1XAqxSEtszuxH9VZxuTYaeOdYHC/ZMVF0NqVKm JUy4QKU2680WnuXJIK6KWA0RYHA0OVYXw+mtBp1/+qp6hNPxxeoYL4bcH4FPmzsEgcUx IVWnpk9U1cgoqIBYl3EUseG3rSdt/ns49kYo22lVHCgZGM/pyhk0Cjns5DOyB0J05b1O +3uQ==
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=94PlSPHUiu5g6UVj/C9ahXGedWZcX5U4JR7cYVt4cjw=; b=InhBAwVlkjHa74wdqGYgxbzbUSDvzMQYIxTbVo7IcR+tDKSlJApoxjGuBqDLw10KfN x+oUSH362KhDKlFvKHuqCh8hh6DN352bE/MObSAlrWKkBbpvZdJR9TlSpSp39+ykrtjs WpN0Rt2s/pUHqZ689bnUxuPvT+KsrZeIbfl1EU7+Gd6P2G2HwYHJnv24N/0CEOeIAONH pgwy5EV9RiCiX08xtEgpy8TdBq0uurx+C3nCG/7oaxcgn74+eZknI6V/kiRhht12Q44Y gwGRCvzNg88x8x7D5lnQ5OFmDQl67QDvlJz5uG3VXf6MR7ks4rEsuGbVxh7KhbL6jDuQ 9lCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l3biF/I9/z/xLvO4O9+Jbbmi5mEMCICNZzDzayGx4FMAd8NDyP5P1SAW/hBhBoCA==
X-Received: by 10.202.230.205 with SMTP id d196mr8004959oih.8.1487706214831; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o6sm9739466oig.8.2017.02.21.11.43.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:43:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E580FFBB-7A17-4B48-92CC-E95BB9887743@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4B720146-42F8-4644-9346-8DA69A48C6AD"; 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: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:43:31 -0800
In-Reply-To: <C9FDAEB9-9F79-4186-9C48-5F44E5E07235@gmail.com>
To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <C9FDAEB9-9F79-4186-9C48-5F44E5E07235@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rzXA_8WIbRQAVE1HAlapFteLkHY>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
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: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:43:37 -0000

Hi,

I went through the responses to the call regarding <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> .  The question in the email was:

    Please respond with either support or non-support for this proposed change by
    18 February 2017.  I think it is unfortunate to add extra delay over this
    change, but after consulting with our AD, I think the best course is to ask the
    working group.

My summary of the responses is:

Fred Baker                 non-support
Lorenzo Colitti            non-support
Enno Rey                   support
t.pech                     non-support
Brian Carpenter            Doesn’t think it’s a w.g. decision
Joel Halpern               non-support
Sander Steffan             support
Roland Bless               non-support
Alexandre Petrescu         non-support
神明達哉                    Didn’t indicate a position

By my count there is 6 non-support and 2 in support of the acknowledgement paragraph (not counting the response from the authors Fernando and Alissa).

Based on this, Suresh should notify the RFC Editor to remove the acknowledgement paragraph.

Bob



> On Feb 11, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> is currently in AUTH48.  According to the datatracker it has been in the RFC Editor queue for 54 days.  Everything is done, except there is an impasse over a change to the Acknowledgement Section.  One of the authors has proposed adding:
> 
>   Fernando Gont would like to thank Nelida Garcia and Guillermo Daniel
>   Gont for their love and support, and Jorge Oscar Gont and Diego
>   Armando Maradona for their inspiration.
> 
> Some of the other authors don’t think this change is appropriate for AUTH48, but the author proposing this has insisted on adding this text.
> 
> Please respond with either support or non-support for this proposed change by 18 February 2017.  I think it is unfortunate to add extra delay over this change, but after consulting with our AD, I think the best course is to ask the working group.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bob (Document Shepard)
>