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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 02/21/2017 05:44 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 21, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Thanks Bob. Will let the RFC Editor know and proceed with publication.

Just out of curiosity:

Is a statement like "I do not support" *without any rationale* of value?

And, are statements like "I do not support this, because we only do X in
the 'Acnkowledgements' section" of any value, when it should be obvious
to anyone that RFCs have contained virtually *anything*? -- please check
the "Acknowledgements" section of RFC1812 for an example, but there are
many others.

I ask because, essentially, folks that have argued against the
Acknowledgement I added fall into one of these two camps: no rationale
for objecting (other than "I do not support", "too late") or claiming
that Acks follow "guidelines" that evidence shows that it's not true.

As noted, I will go with whatever the wg decides. But I'm curious about
the above.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492