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

sthaug@nethelp.no Wed, 22 February 2017 07:50 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 73A90129541 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 23:50:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 Ju4mFplwidm9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 23:50:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51122129480 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 23:50:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BECEE6065; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:49:59 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:49:59 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20170222.084959.74724472.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: iarce@fundacionsadosky.org.ar
Subject: Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <edae0117-0dee-92a0-6ec9-60a2e17a2012@fundacionsadosky.org.ar>
References: <c5e05727-f05f-b451-0066-9dcffd65d231@si6networks.com> <31594A30-7A2B-4F3E-9F18-F890DE50BFCF@gmail.com> <edae0117-0dee-92a0-6ec9-60a2e17a2012@fundacionsadosky.org.ar>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/zXbRE9SUXMaQSRp1J4pjVjfpH4g>
Cc: fgont@si6networks.com, ipv6@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
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 07:50:03 -0000

> Until now I've been following this "discussion" in the mailing lists in
> amazement, I could not fathom how or why the just.appointed IETF chair,
> who also happens to be co-author of the document, could possibly think
> that questioning the addition of a single paragraph in the
> acknowledgements section of an RFC made sense or was necessary action,
> and how AD or WG could possibly think this should be open for a public
> discussion.

I have to agree. This whole discussion seems utterly unnecessary, not
to mention silly. The acknowledgement should be allowed, end of story.

> In summary, I believe that nitpicking on the Acknowledgments section of
> an RFC while allowing for traditions like the April 1st RFCs or being
> much more flexible on the actual technical contents of several drafts
> and standards does not set a good precedent here.

Fully agreed.

> If this is really
> considered an actual issue for discussion, I'd like to suggest an
> alternative solution:
> 
> Simply let the acknowledgments stand and initiate work on an RFC that
> would either update or replace RFC 7322 with normative guidance.
> 
> Baring that, I sincerely hope the RFC Editor brings back the sanity and
> common sense that I find lacking in this whole affair.

Agreed.

Steinar Haug, AS2116