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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 30 January 2015 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 CB7F31A8F4A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 04:52:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 dtjS_AWYFG3R for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 04:52:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1A2F1A01F0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 04:52:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 949DADA0111 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:52:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F0353E07E; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 04:52:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 04:52:52 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049024FB@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 07:52:37 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <FAB3DBCD-57B2-45F9-9D5F-63303571F707@nominum.com>
References: <8B808F0C-1AA8-4ABE-A06E-80652B9C1498@cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr2jO9Lc8e4GXxcTWgEudotbTVsgsgW7uspYZ82UqK-1sA@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049024FB@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/smPY2xfL9_5qQeFr0XS4t3-PXXU>
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>
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 12:52:55 -0000

On Jan 30, 2015, at 2:35 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> [Med] It was removed as per a request from the IESG (A. Farrel).

It is well within the rights of the working group to say no to Adrian on this point.   He may not have been aware of the reason the working group put it in the document.   It may be that there's a better way to serve the intent of the working group than this text, which could be negotiated with Adrian, but the point is that the fact that Adrian put it in a DISCUSS doesn't mean that the DISCUSsion is over.   This is why we bring documents back to working groups after addressing DISCUSses that produce significant changes.