IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 05 May 2019 23:13 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 57DE41200C1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 May 2019 16:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 7w_MibKJgC45 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 May 2019 16:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x532.google.com (mail-pg1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::532]) (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 C0F82120041 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 May 2019 16:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x532.google.com with SMTP id h1so5521380pgs.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 05 May 2019 16:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=duMNvsNhSc8ogs8A9brJPWQrUtm4sObYW0XtaYysT5s=; b=T3BVBWuBkQaj/mHDhu2+iuXdwsDjvr2IhFUzjdWKFvEyS8aUyw3gRvr05AEW5Y+dvD gLA95UJdXPrhjK+wXJYqULHnhCFdfqm9CRJJpqN9x8kqp0PuEjFRm6G5FpoKJOqq5+xV XBtafoES2dv6LTh0+PSxB2/QTl8C/usP9bd6SzkuOs4sLlL31czVGF17BKfXxCx6MXKS 9btBRRR5EeUu4JUvyu/BkDbZEfBAQPAzqqywIF0z9qFJFm6BapwGzxOUUSSQyfEPCRz5 p1YbkL2DtM0jxZtqSHTsI4BQhpAdgCJ/Vmt2teah8Rhw2adftfcAp5A+5u78KOkwXDhf dN7g==
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:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=duMNvsNhSc8ogs8A9brJPWQrUtm4sObYW0XtaYysT5s=; b=h2WaRmzQey16/+dDDO/MJ/Ep0ILzcEa+DEKCfjl8GvTK/o5OHTNsJjV0fjFf4mF+sE QPjZi7iWUAqO/ZfyM5CA0QlVdPStzxIHd/w55kIkrlApEAdqSBZxdfy6lmMXLLYmLn/Y 9cfTTYouvYwGUkPUuu/v1uVsnWc76A4VTw8CC/G+VXvqEtdfzrqFZfhQF5HQQQ6cxVVC iM0+5q6//Nn3yNHbVDorHxXHH2IJit1RSNvI+nm0OYtr/Dw0qrRtq7jNNYTq0Xhd9HZH 0kUHJbJzZmDKA+IDwosn+5rz5eRypVquVl2yLFVoQL3EOL1j3jKC3AV3uYtvyDnB+9VQ AMpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXFY/zrAqR9CAKGH0Jsdh3K38ddLptAHCHTuMT1lzAy2adRPdDK i6y4N59zvYjUD8xE4HXOBgAr0glX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx8rXQxYVmey4dPbP0r1JJRQJRGYkXkIkzlSWem+NlAH7izTMyA01AW5p0d/FsbkorXdx3WQA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:da14:: with SMTP id c20mr13160164pgh.191.1557098013968; Sun, 05 May 2019 16:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.72.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v1sm11152951pff.81.2019.05.05.16.13.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 05 May 2019 16:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <F8BFFCAD-E58E-4736-8A1C-56579B6F6032@employees.org> <a2465e81-a17f-ab48-efda-20fe12a70077@foobar.org> <30239E0C-C444-4A7E-8342-AEE47BF8A2BB@employees.org> <20190505200449.GB7546@vurt.meerval.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <80073906-c3c0-1f22-9e7f-c2b349063936@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2019 11:13:27 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190505200449.GB7546@vurt.meerval.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/zA5GoC-EbaY_SM5Uvu1vP-8zc0w>
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: Sun, 05 May 2019 23:13:36 -0000

On 06-May-19 08:04, Job Snijders wrote:
> Dear Ole,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 02:01:43PM +0200, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> On 29 Apr 2019, at 13:03, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> So, is this ID proceeding on a point of procedure at this point?
>>> I.e. is the the slate going to be wiped clean every time an update
>>> is issued, no matter how minor, and all previous objections are
>>> automatically invalidated?
>>
>> Yes, I think that's a somewhat correct reading of working group process.
> 
> No.
> 
> This interpretation of the working group process is flawed. This is not
> all how IETF works.
> 
> If we consider "no matter how minor" as just changing the version number
> of a draft, we should all be able to see that the act of merely bumping
> the version number of a draft absolutely is not an adequate
> implementation of "addressing outstanding issues".

Correct. But that doesn't apply to the draft in question, so I don't
understand why you mention it.
 
> Concerns are addressed through dialogue and substantial change to an
> Internet Draft.

Correct. But substantial changes can be quite small, and often are small
in the later stages of discussion.
 
> Conceding when there is a real outstanding technical objection is not
> coming to consensus.

No, but the IETF works by rough consensus, which means that a document
may be advanced even with technical objections that cannot be resolved.

In this case, *speaking for myself alone*, I don't know of any more
text changes that would meet the objections that have been raised.
In fact, the only suggestion for change that has been made is to drop
the whole idea. The WG could decide to do that. That's not my decision
to make; as an author of a WG draft, I do what the WG requests.
 
> The misuse of process has been brought up before
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/GAIeuDbH3q1u9YQvQLHYaYK4sXU
> It gives me great cause for alarm to observe these proceedings.

There's no cause for alarm. There's a difference of opinion - some 
people have expressed support for the proposal, others have said
it is intrinsically bad. Further wordsmithing can't fix that.

There are thoughts about how a WG can resolve such a difference of
opinion in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 .

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email