Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 02 February 2015 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFDD21A9239 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 22:40:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 6250iE27nh5H for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 22:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AC601A9237 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 22:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by omfeda14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 478902AC305; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:40:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.5]) by omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1B7C3158078; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:40:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([169.254.2.231]) by OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:40:51 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
Thread-Index: AQHQPZdT94KoZb5URc+rHGKXMO3E0Jzc6ddw
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 06:40:50 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049034FD@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <8B808F0C-1AA8-4ABE-A06E-80652B9C1498@cisco.com> <B7D61F30-BAC4-4BE0-A5FD-1D4BD4652E55@employees.org> <20150129201251.GD34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902668@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20150130103924.GG34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902889@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <54CD3FB7.3020402@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <54CD3FB7.3020402@bogus.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.2.2.22719
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/1PCT2vmkn6Jdcno-QmBLCwk_rgA>
Cc: "draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 06:40:55 -0000

Hi Joel,

Which consensus are your talking about?: The one for adopting the document as a WG item?, the first one declared by the WG before sending it to the IESG? the second one declared by the WG to send the document to the IESG?, or the IETF consensus that was declared before the IESG starts its review?

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : joel jaeggli [mailto:joelja@bogus.com] 
Envoyé : samedi 31 janvier 2015 21:49
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Gert Doering
Cc : draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org; V6 Ops List
Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

On 1/30/15 4:21 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> Re-,
> 
> With all due respect, I'm afraid we are not discussing whether the
> document is needed or not but (as I see it) whether the new version
> does not break the WG consensus that was declared for the version
> sent to the IESG. I recall that both the WG and IETF consensus were
> declared for the version sent to the IESG.

One point on that. Part of the reason we are engaged canvasing, is that
Brian's discussed questioned my interpretation of the consensus call.
Given that I conceded from the outset that the call is somewhat narrow,
one of the questions before us as a w.g. and the ietf community is, is
that consensus more unequivocal?  Brian I believe is willing to extended
the benefit of the doubt. So am I, but it's the working groups document...

thanks

joel

> Thank you.
> 
> Cheers, Med
> 
> -----Message d'origine----- De : Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net]
>  Envoyé : vendredi 30 janvier 2015 11:39 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed
> IMT/OLN Cc : Gert Doering; Ole Troan; Fred Baker (fred);
> draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org; V6 Ops
> List Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last
> call
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 09:12:16AM +0000,
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
>> Can you please help us identifying technical flaws that you think
>> need to be fixed in the document?
> 
> I don't think there is a need for this document, and I can't truly
> see it reflecting WG consensus.  So it's more fundamental than just
> individual technical issues.
> 
> For the specifics, everything that Lorenzo said.
> 
> Gert Doering -- NetMaster
>