IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs-00

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 22 July 2009 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E74A3A6A31 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.459
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.191, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1RiGhmrGONIv for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B883A68D0 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1MTg1x-000B4x-57 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:55:05 +0000
Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <fred@cisco.com>) id 1MTg1s-000B3e-Qr for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:55:03 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,248,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="217675576"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2009 17:55:00 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n6MHt07o012772; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:55:00 -0700
Received: from [10.186.77.146] (sjc-vpn5-1767.cisco.com [10.21.94.231]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6MHt0pO011480; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:55:00 GMT
Cc: Chris Donley <C.Donley@cablelabs.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <09693008-2160-42B0-AF8D-243585D451CC@cisco.com>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
To: Hemant Singh <shemant@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D07A0270F@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs-00
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:54:59 -0700
References: <B1ED8A2E683E16479C92C3F4AE13677B01E1A92E@srvxchg3.cablelabs.com> <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D07A0270F@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=898; t=1248285300; x=1249149300; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<fred@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20New=20Version=20Notification=20for=20dr aft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs-00=20 |Sender:=20; bh=VJBSk9efT1xRgAClmgXsRB317km/VJ+dssUufecQaeA=; b=bo6uMxC0ud/oJGEJlJJEtuQCPZR54JDK3ThqK2PgKaw3Qebwo/TeiScoY9 e9VVh3qlwgyOxRII7W1mdIzBVmnFWJ8xfvzymyCWt6j25vNx1l4I9dyDeZ8z b8fm5dGaEm;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

> I really do not understand why this draft was authored especially  
> since it's been one year since our IETF CPE Rtr doc has been around?

The implication I draw as working group chair is that the document you  
have written doesn't quite do it for Chris or his organization; if it  
did, he would have no motivation to write one. The liaison from BBF  
suggests that they also have concerns with the WG document - something  
we already knew from their previous communications.

This response makes me wonder whether we are ready to draw together a  
working group document. I had hoped that we could have a f2f meeting  
in Stockholm between the interested parties, but that clearly won't  
happen. How would you suggest we proceed to consensus around a  
document? "Use mine" is a non-answer in the circumstance.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email