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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 1C4CC1294AD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:53:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZtmrAfAhNLX3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:53:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C64651294B5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:53:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.83] (unknown [181.165.116.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (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 <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, Robert Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
References: <C9FDAEB9-9F79-4186-9C48-5F44E5E07235@gmail.com> <E580FFBB-7A17-4B48-92CC-E95BB9887743@gmail.com> <5F61B219-A2C2-471E-9DB0-3B604D101317@ericsson.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <c5e05727-f05f-b451-0066-9dcffd65d231@si6networks.com>
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: <5F61B219-A2C2-471E-9DB0-3B604D101317@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/sgZI8ryOv3Sld07sAIPrU7hOHCI>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
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: 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 <bob.hinden@gmail.com> 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: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492