IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 18 July 2017 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF786131B38 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 05:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 AnsKOLMeextV for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 05:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22a.google.com (mail-pf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22a]) (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 4DEDA131948 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 05:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id o88so4515965pfk.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 05:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=940ztzWnJD7Ym/wdOOIwPJZSDrnB2TyvdwHuYbHuhcc=; b=ZoCacBgTK78dzuUOm5GE4x+WXVxuRkwq5mV7hLUAEeKaa3dCKkRs2tmTVqusysJTNK CKDeJOpTBzF7Rf7GEJGljjx1J2se3/DvpP74kLdlpA5HAiybsvRbdl1oO9qSmwzixPde K7x7FqKipMMKUN77JZhZGVRA865OJ8pdVMRIAOF7exjHEqsnzo9WkVYZiCexwwYNEZsJ pDErNhlER/RqGf1rXBmm8eRh7Et2K+AOCc/FY/Rw0a12Oi5iZbqnsWZJ64ccSXDJibdW 9ex/H1RyHmLUtY/yFY8rQpBG8PR4BoxcqwjMeSE7f0I2Y6Je2EWc8AFcV+t7UJbC+Ldt 4rvQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=940ztzWnJD7Ym/wdOOIwPJZSDrnB2TyvdwHuYbHuhcc=; b=o+r2rx4AloYRnlQfBLgJdpYyyMZbhZ77SlOODp60wNcu1lK6b9xqPStZllTCYXkdPu 4n8FER69WqNcVbIoXjl5M0sJL5f1Z1UdXj63xW3X5qij9aAQi3R2E3gqW280KuGVIYz7 lEUm8eRvUxBE7Ii7vi+VYpAa1qHrseBlikEtzs1lawbGfd2T8Y5pmIay89EQKM6HwBgT CqSYVn9v1uRbs6aAXen+kC0hezeyerfbNihDGBssTzdv70gnlF+pLmnIPxNspbAqZkuT FYSA/+UZHQADFer6NZUQvPkWvMjEVCAjsEj8uxc0674+Ns/NkAicY5/dM8bWiTBLb2ZT 5iiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113MuduIH2eA7scA/jc2N3nWygbkGRq8Q+xJCEQ8rsI9xsTN+BB0 SeJGAPPGeLBwBSq0RTZz1XxnmSe2bnjb
X-Received: by 10.101.91.70 with SMTP id y6mr1085242pgr.122.1500381298851; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 05:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.181.42 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 05:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <596DFD26.4050206@foobar.org>
References: <596CF817.8040900@foobar.org> <CAPt1N1mm6gMEQN0KQ60e=vROOEbooxOBpZEGBm9SGP4WwBDtnw@mail.gmail.com> <596D2E63.3070401@foobar.org> <CAAedzxpT89AYcM6QWq9MHb_dJfeEm7rwpVDunRNUrHah-AhgOw@mail.gmail.com> <596DFD26.4050206@foobar.org>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:34:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kYSj0de_wdiEffNooe2WjVub5wz7kawCNM=MRFa-YsJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e08238144589d88055496be9d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1BPksgehCaQ5KZJ37ODNvmssHO8>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 12:35:01 -0000

Nick, it's not actually up to you to determine consensus, and you do not
seem to actually be describing a situation where there was a lack of
consensus.   If you feel that there was indeed an error made by the chairs,
who *were* responsible for calling consensus, the right thing to do would
be to appeal to the chairs, and if you are not satisfied by their response,
to appeal to the IESG, and so on.

What you should not do is have an argument about whether or not there was
consensus on the working group mailing list a year after the RFC was
published.

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:

> Erik Kline wrote:
> > The topic in general was discussed.
>
> ... without consensus in the context of
> draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability, and after the change was made
> in section 8 despite a lack of consensus that it was an appropriate
> change to make, there was no further discussion.
>
> Nick
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email