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

<Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de> Fri, 30 January 2015 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de>
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 852FA1A90B1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 07:48:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.859
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 6dOGkMNWaHdc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 07:48:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tcmail93.telekom.de (tcmail93.telekom.de [80.149.113.205]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3A341A90B0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 07:48:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qdezc2.de.t-internal.com ([10.125.181.10]) by tcmail91.telekom.de with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2015 16:48:11 +0100
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,492,1418079600"; d="scan'208,217";a="205841149"
Received: from he111297.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.90.15]) by qde0ps.de.t-internal.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 30 Jan 2015 16:48:12 +0100
Received: from HE113605.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.65.122]) by HE111297.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([fe80::9835:b110:c489:6d64%16]) with mapi; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:48:10 +0100
From: <Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de>
To: <lorenzo@google.com>, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:48:09 +0100
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
Thread-Index: AdA8ohqCI/KLc3oXRCqDj2ANZZQjkQAAcRmg
Message-ID: <FFD91DE61362694C94B174BB03CFDCDD0102408FA8AC@HE113605.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
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> <CAKD1Yr2WQfbDstchk4J0hcCz2_X23nijd71QytU5RpuV=Q3Wjg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2WQfbDstchk4J0hcCz2_X23nijd71QytU5RpuV=Q3Wjg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FFD91DE61362694C94B174BB03CFDCDD0102408FA8ACHE113605eme_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Gz1de__8f0DzzM0Khe-tmV8Y9_s>
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org, 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: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:48:17 -0000

Lorenzo, do you want to start another WGLC for this document? Why do you assume that WG position has changed since the last WGLC?

-ob

From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti
Sent: Freitag, 30. Januar 2015 16:32
To: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org; V6 Ops List
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> wrote:
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.

Er, wait. Are you're saying that if the WG re-reads this document and there is no longer consensus in the WG that it should be published, it gets published anyway?