IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 02 February 2015 12:01 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 E9ECC1A0195 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 04:01:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 HXDZdL2somI2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 04:01:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias243.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.243]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47FB11A0191 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 04:01:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfeda05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.198]) by omfeda12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7C6593B4096; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 13:01:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.16]) by omfeda05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 50123180067; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 13:01:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([169.254.2.231]) by OPEXCLILH05.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([10.114.31.16]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 13:01:49 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Thread-Topic: Consensus call on draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile ?
Thread-Index: AQHQPtnzKGaB97TLQpOXcL51MclsIpzdQWTA
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 12:01:48 +0000
Message-ID: <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>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0pBWdv-pEkH2ghq7ShOuUeAgTR62LsE1t-=F-5mvJ=Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004903904OPEXCLILM23corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.2.2.110619
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Zz3eQnwFuu2RNjdePYmJnvrEYj8>
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 12:01:54 -0000

Re-,

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.

What I’m also observing is that you were against this draft since its adoption, you repeated your objection during the IETF LC but we agreed to integrate the text changes you asked for.

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

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

Cheers,
Med


De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com]
Envoyé : lundi 2 février 2015 12:18
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : joel jaeggli; v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org; Gert Doering; draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org; V6 Ops List
Objet : Re: Consensus call on draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile ?

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 5:07 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> wrote:
I’m not a chair nor an AD but, but as an editor of the document, I don’t see what changed since the consensus was declared for this document SEVERAL times.

Well... for one, the WG can always change its mind, can it not? Or are you saying that because consensus was declared in the past, we are now irrevocably committed to publishing this document?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email