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

Fernando Gont <> Wed, 22 February 2017 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4CC1294AD for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:53:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZtmrAfAhNLX3 for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:53:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C64651294B5 for <>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:53:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D954F806BE; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 01:52:45 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
To: Suresh Krishnan <>, Robert Hinden <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:23:39 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 00:53:47 -0000

On 02/21/2017 05:44 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Bob Hinden <> 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.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492