IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 23 March 2011 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AF3A3A691E for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.305
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.305 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.294, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iR2WLtS2qmxO for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361B43A691D for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so8079305fxm.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=h3oFhctOX7pvvod+sS+BWvhE+xS2cSVY79rrFOXoXVE=; b=sy7fC1auzmZC7+T+1Lz730bXfa+eGl2+LyZG5zy9lzHFtPuNpNgSXwDe774tOyfEHW mvLOj49/EI2xZBfA+tTqPWfrD6PPZVh+yh+O29ydoS9t8ha+yL0hj6iUg8w+byuaNaHC 6aeycp7Z5o5XMzAtp9EREg9BtdyCUgSyd9LPo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=kYqhhkob9Xe0PifszTE6oHGM6y0uGN+OtDO2RvRYIHDBW9RsmTFq9uZU6/+gv5HHtw /xFS5lvuN71M0iO12JDVpbIBHSMU2jyGSqiw1Ap9ApgRntbce4bhh7ExgAd0cLU6t3bV Jz2gXqnLlNTi8b8jV2TfEv7SmPQIXnF1FVjYE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.59.146 with SMTP id l18mr6445898fah.58.1300892123418; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.78.135 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7758DEF9-FD80-428B-95F1-782C9EB9373D@inria.fr>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es> <4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com> <4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es> <4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com> <4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es> <4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com> <4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es> <4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com> <AANLkTimP84zss62OuTddFGLgDd5GAw1M7ctZh+Nxbkmj@mail.gmail.com> <4D890BD4.8060502@gmail.com> <AANLkTim_wYf+=OsgzOTpm5wWz+sPi564Tpph0HpY57XW@mail.gmail.com> <7758DEF9-FD80-428B-95F1-782C9EB9373D@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:55:23 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimuMPUaHSiFvxv9GBR_H8UxTet7R7wiRf+f4CPP@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:03:44 -0000

Thierry,

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> Juiien,
>
> Please read below.
>
> Le 22 mars 2011 à 23:26, Julien Laganier a écrit :
>
>>
>> 2. If I am not mistaken you were already given a chance to present
>> this draft in a MEXT session, at which point nobody in the WG
>> expressed interest in it.
>
> This is not what I would called a fair statement. There are people on this list that DO have interest in this work - including me -, though I agree it might not be the priority of the WG (which is quite different from what you wrote - please be careful with such a statement - of course I'm sure you didn't really mean it).

Please read my statements carefully before calling on their fairness.
I did not write nobody in the WG was interested, I wrote that nobody
in the WG expressed interest. Did you expressed interest in this
specific draft when it was announced to the mailing list? If so, it
would seem I have missed your message and I would apologize...

--julien

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email