Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Job Snijders <> Thu, 23 February 2017 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFA6129887; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:36:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c4gNBW4rthfM; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:36:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:5::26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D8EE129886; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:36:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.88) (envelope-from <>) id 1cguVS-000FY2-A3 (; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:36:40 +0000
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:36:02 +0100
From: Job Snijders <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>,
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <>, Peter Hessler <>
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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:36:43 -0000

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:14:35PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Peter Hessler <> wrote:
> > As an implementation, OpenBSD will never add such a crazy thing.  And
> > you know that many other implementations won't do so either.
> >
> > I strongly oppose this draft.
> Bit late to object to that text now I'm afraid.

You are overstepping, Peter's message is submitted well within the
proper time window:

	The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
	consider the following document:
	- 'IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture'
	  <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> as Internet Standard

	The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
	final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the mailing lists by 2017-03-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
	sent to instead. 

> A good time to object would have been 19 years ago when the text you
> object to became the standard:

You realise that new people are born every day, and not everyone who
participates in IETF is 50+ years old? Even I were not of legal age 19
years ago.

Your comment borders on the verge of discrimation based on age. This
violates the fundamentals on which we work together to standardise

Comments which imply "you should've been there" are both demeaning
and derogatory to operators who come to IETF to improve the current
state of affairs.

Kind regards,