IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 13 May 2020 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 5323C3A091A; Wed, 13 May 2020 14:06:10 -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 iGfBjdWrNvJu; Wed, 13 May 2020 14:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62f.google.com (mail-pl1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) (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 628763A094A; Wed, 13 May 2020 14:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id u22so296045plq.12; Wed, 13 May 2020 14:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0TfApiGT1+N0/wiaQfjGZ2DKVJIT2v+wM89GqtZyOiY=; b=qyrLw6TEy8DeWosvbwn6CH9mgjs7p1uLKZOPuBtJelVoocs9eWu94NBOAzN5k1MTSY g5pIpE5At5BMrwPRIkOAhs4cMomj+9xoJfLQfey204XMGkYT4p0qS7u1IUecWDOMg3OP 7O/cY62zM/oeshSsa5nXmrYEWFsFY2zJqL0w++DBAa9Rjpv4iqpJNkGHftNvjv5emkKF zS7ey0u0LYZNnSQhn+qifHcvPza+SkdmsP+4ZAu2dPND1Q/u4r7PAO3qNw6FWCS+uG+V 2M8PobMWd/+qYFHvT1iRjdjJIzC8fL3asbhylRGlP6FYRggTc/pW6ppPiJbjNA/wzgEj 48AA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0TfApiGT1+N0/wiaQfjGZ2DKVJIT2v+wM89GqtZyOiY=; b=dF0u7WDPVzcsGNaNDtm/NoY1f1/F73ai6UMeJ3a5EamWi//tAC4tGcNHmRb/yvxMNm w0NGsiCtxInbFojIhbW1GszzAKX4xNDR7G674bqEV7S9lSnLv276zK0BB4LdPEs4Ojf6 UL8YKMnu2FIpLi8ihOLh8+H6nKDf+0AL8ZbDha0WuMwci7O84/i9UO6coqpLUTc8rvef UDzetgZniuXwMpjvpacKZO7Gi6srAY8Y4rIwUPscFGgGhsuSprIUULkRMy0Y7PTuooBt URr6a9frKIInNw0OX/FChlxwXwtGMv3v1iJnVbJYKiGPpJWkNImNYE2ndgd2x57MYZjB EgAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531p2bVD6dtTtAb5bwJ023OdmVKG0L6kRaXSgwMFlV6G5KtU6lXK y2HUr3rWsuHrYPpVGle1wRyndX+Q
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQnoZo6bkLLz6IGuY24HMRvky80Ows2mTtOQaqwOqZ/M08qcnb33VbLwcEM+S8oUz0xER9Ew==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:eed1:: with SMTP id h17mr991220plb.312.1589403967451; Wed, 13 May 2020 14:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v2sm16118081pje.52.2020.05.13.14.06.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 May 2020 14:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]
To: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <DM6PR05MB6348E9AD1E088792C2F10BB4AEBF0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8CC3F837-B4D6-4570-AF2F-37041839F391@employees.org> <21E9A957-1A31-4A11-8E78-5F7E382866D4@juniper.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <d354d411-2ac9-3b8d-136f-11e4914dfa24@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 09:06:01 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <21E9A957-1A31-4A11-8E78-5F7E382866D4@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/s_C3yNXYD523QqS7jXQTLtR2nAs>
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: Wed, 13 May 2020 21:06:17 -0000

On 14-May-20 07:59, John Scudder wrote:
...
> But at any rate, the question for the chairs is: do you think 6man needs SPRING’s permission in order to consider adopting CRH? 

No, of course not. But the final decision is made by IETF consensus, not by WG consensus.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email