Re: [v6ops] Consensus call on draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile ?

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Mon, 02 February 2015 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 30D521A0277 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 04:32:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 s8VKkP0lU7O6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 04:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x234.google.com (mail-ig0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D091A0276 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 04:32:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f180.google.com with SMTP id b16so16382962igk.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 04:32:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=0//xhV/za0ztxRlM34LxD4zVGDuNp1AsY3V7GzXdtY4=; b=hWG27VTavAJgp0J+ryq/df/9SXwMQB/dM+/wHyalAbqI3jC0aSMbNjSst/cYj5i2Im P8/SLFNf7XwKHeUqQJzaGYCVU0bDtLQHy1JRatBYvXSDzXDQAn6oEs4T2qXifKpo262b /ArGk2wtjj8cWo1HptQF2BJBzVvjYWIuYGDuDAc2lagAMeZNglexNeOkWguyWTsH+zYH Ww3q628eH1A9YEa9VPZtD3BLPiur+o7aLR20BDGlNvdUutO+c9gaDAi4xW/sp4ENFV3y gho0w49Ofhh9mxbCDz0ZCZ2rML+hMbECSA/MwbKKzO4eB5a+CcWUp3OlaikEXnhwFs/e pshA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=0//xhV/za0ztxRlM34LxD4zVGDuNp1AsY3V7GzXdtY4=; b=g+q/AxZGP33ERkl35jlfPHAYI7cFbrnVsDqACAst5mJgy4+B4OETvxDZRe0WN1ZJz/ rAUv9V+yoUK3FcIUIT3K/aEFuTTKEsLW2RG20SQjp4Be7mA1DGiwA03rlvNQfZbW3Wyh dOe1XLI2fJLl+I6Mlqb4DNDyoIPt2ijkE2Gm0JE80bBMpl62lwYwFe+czPmBEyoR0MsP VvnalF5Y+iU9wZ6s19Op20Y+LWiSzJVVlwwHYyXHIVsr5R1TRsEJVrCu7ih/vgzBe/7q phbThX9Gg7X4eyySgi3hWaKM6fAESUKGAE6UnJZCDAlYwSJ+w53yzebTAuMgliSfINAY j8EQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlk3G/3Hpser7QvDCWqNxHuSeagjt+yYcHCLR0hcRo9+IZRK3SvfHonb6mUURWWCtDnBwxL
X-Received: by 10.43.67.3 with SMTP id xs3mr15946523icb.39.1422880330134; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 04:32:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.138.136 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 04:31:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004903904@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <CAKD1Yr1hHAVMZbXZuAtNExXw8TqUSDhzGBY5OA2fr9jMZgd9eQ@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490366F@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr0pBWdv-pEkH2ghq7ShOuUeAgTR62LsE1t-=F-5mvJ=Vg@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004903904@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 21:31:50 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2qTPH6u8YEk89cikc6EZ5S9aCUmhik3UyaGMiKR8MHXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2162ea2e05b050e1a24c0"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/DtuAOhoXcruUXYZr82HLo7xl2hM>
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>, "v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Consensus call on draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile ?
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 12:32:12 -0000

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:01 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

>  What I’m saying is clear: As an editor of this WG adopted document, I
> don’t see new elements that would motivate the wg to consider the consensus
> for it given the recent changes do not conflict with the spirit of the
> version that reached both the WG and IETF consensus + these changes are
> proposed by the IESG.
>

Are you saying that the WG cannot change its mind, or that you see no
reason for it to change its mind?

Whether the WG can or cannot change its mind on this document is, I think,
a procedural point that the chairs and the AD can clarify or decide.
Whether you see any reason for it to do so is a matter of opinion that may
or may not be shared by the rest of the WG. All I'm saying is that in the
latest WGLC thread, there were a lot of negative responses and not a whole
lot of support except from the authors. To me that suggests that people are
unhappy with this document.


> Is it fair to repeatedly reiterate the same arguments while the wg decided
> otherwise?
>

I didn't reiterate the same arguments. I started my response to this new
WGLC by saying that I was found to be in the rough, and only picked three
points to comment on, none of which had been made before.


>  Would you accept that the IETF consensus does not reflect your own
> opinion?
>

Of course consensus might not reflect my opinion. The question I'm asking
is: is there still consensus in the WG to publish this document?