RE: A quick poll about RFC 7221

Adrian Farrel <> Fri, 18 September 2020 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC3E33A0930 for <>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 02:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ONKqdHASNhO for <>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 02:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D935A3A0B7E for <>; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 02:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 08I9fZBt028181; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:41:35 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B28F22048; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:41:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1602122044; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:41:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 08I9fYPo018333 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:41:34 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Fred Baker'" <>
Cc: <>
References: <00e001d68940$bc73db70$355b9250$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: A quick poll about RFC 7221
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 10:41:34 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <033a01d68d9f$e5d53500$b17f9f00$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQH7L1IPvSCo7KIOVut6zYB9mzmiaQHuMPStqRVu2eA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--18.852-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--18.852-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--18.851500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: nI1cAR4k0HZNwBTaxUmxQ3FPUrVDm6jtQfblIp3oBdEgUEQTkIWiYksc 5TBBJosTTKPS0SFcjlnbWn2R+bH6rK/fa3S3RxMouVFL9NtjSQLgHhCN7Wx4VcrqU0Pln+DOMvf 5yYHFDxCtmpf2iRnuMJt1r5oIlt5A8oWuLhK0Tf0YoLUdWZp+Yy+w46aA6jWZmbdPE3zcujgTTF MqURRB9MoayPQdsNSUpvrTBFZ2EvHXpbyRr+p4Iyxg5qs3xzgf4HDFr9EO5+IW6M2A15L1QCc5a FljLyodzkovv0N3yYB2dcm1ZXCuwNqoygGFfC1GRXdiukZQCgHCTVwx00+msZ2tlKRfZjU7yvFc oBpD/5ytqoVkJDzzVwgDUAXpOwzseRRnvw5oZ5wo7b5tLxYZrSI/8jW908ln/ZlT98dhI5mGnAU y99j5bW2XjUEO6zeMsTwujiXA3uD6+7mjV+YfuZCYtcHXhxbawZy9wGhpvaOzxKTjxWuf8cWlhj 9iHeVp5FG8mnmnbWOMZy06H0RsHGQexWkOikPfzfqlpbtmcWjXNrpT49qw9cuSXx71bvSL+zhol 3t6AJmr/vOxAKzqOV+24nCsUSFNt7DW3B48kkErN8z0HohG3voLR4+zsDTthUfR2rvBju4ABM4/ XP6HguV2oof5Y/6tV1lKpxCSK8YrMex9rl2HW+M9qhseM+8t
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:41:41 -0000

Thanks Fred, 

Well it *was* a quick poll 😊

I can add you to the category "This poll prompted me to read it". For those of you who like numbers, I got:

* Yes, read it
* This poll prompted me to read it
* No, not read it

Given that the RFC was somewhat targeted at WG chairs (it had roots in a WG chair lunch session), I have learned something about marketing.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker <> 
Sent: 18 September 2020 01:40
Subject: Re: A quick poll about RFC 7221

And, it would appear, quickly closed it.

I went and read RFC 7221, saw nothing I disagreed with, and went to respond to your poll. Hmm, it was closed, so now I’m responding.

As to “are documents of this sort useful?”, yes, I believe they are. I’m thinking about doing something similar, probably in the v6ops wiki, because I find myself explaining very basic things repeatedly, and would find it helpful to have a link to point to. In my case, it’s “I have an internet draft that <proposes a new protocol>/<is operationally less than useful>/<etc>; may I have a slot on your agenda?” The rule in v6ops is that agenda slots are handed out to people
   -  with updated drafts (e.g., posted since the recent meeting)
   -  consistent with the working group charter 
   -  that are being discussed on the mailing list 
   -  by people that find them interesting and useful in their networks

not unlike other working groups. I probably write that sentence, or something like it, at least once for every meeting. There are individuals that I have said that to on multiple, even many, occasions.

So, yes, these can be useful. I’m less convinced that they need to be normative. But then RFC 7221 isn’t. It’s informative. 

> On Sep 12, 2020, at 1:10 PM, Adrian Farrel <> wrote:
> Hi WG chairs,
> I'm just curious to see who has read RFC 7221.
> Rather than clutter this list, I made a Doodle poll
> Feel free to respond anonymously (e.g., give your name as "Anon 7" or some
> such) if you like.
> There's nothing more to this than wondering whether RFCs like 7221 get read.
> I may come on later to whether this type of RFC is useful or could be made
> more useful.
> Thanks!
> Adrian