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

"Fred Baker (fred)" <> Tue, 03 February 2015 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BF91A8796 for <>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 11:18:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id holDJKx_vXpG for <>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 11:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 726881A8745 for <>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 11:18:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2291; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1422991081; x=1424200681; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ekC97dH0AkFb4iF76tFCIR2aVI/Kz7cDdg7J70ziKPk=; b=diOUjHyJF24kJvoFmorc7uLK63dytfqqvDjMHxlB8mWgR68i6u/mGIa3 BkibBIYAroO7co8Eag0s6c+npPUm3KJBPDhTech9wHHIKUI7la5EBmYks sWyvbnGUFU6LQFYTsTALELL6GqeqgubgBI3qlOLZK0jPVSIa4sXbmQrzp o=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 487
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,514,1418083200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="393025555"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2015 19:18:00 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t13JI0Cb006170 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Feb 2015 19:18:00 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 13:18:00 -0600
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
Thread-Index: AQHQP+YfPEziQPdp1EyC0nGHN6ynig==
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 19:17:59 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <20150129201251.GD34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902668@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20150130103924.GG34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902889@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902889@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CCCD477A-BDFC-493C-9275-FBB8391A1EBF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, V6 Ops List <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 19:18:03 -0000

> On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:21 AM, 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. I recall that both the WG and IETF consensus were declared for the version sent to the IESG.

That’s not quite the way I recall it. In the WG, consensus has always been rough. I sent it out when the number of people stating a dissenting position dwindled. In the IETF LC in September 2013, James, Lorenzo, and Owen made comments that caused Joel to withdraw it from the IESG. In the IETF LC in September 2014 and subsequent IESG discussion, comments were raised by several in the IESG and summarized by Brian Haberman to the effect that the document has serious issues. In this round, you have tried to address the issues raised.

Before I bother the IESG with it a third time, I’d really like to hear a clear consensus, not a rough one. Where it stands right now, that’s not at all obvious.