Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, V

Hi Pete,

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Pete Resnick 
> <presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:22, otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org 
> <mailto:otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org> wrote:
>
> are we re-spinning the debate on a WG-agreed text ?
>
> <tp>
>
> Yes, and I am sure that that is exactly what is intended.
>
> Then let's encourage people outside of 6man, with other points of view, and 
> other arguments to come forward.
>
> A re-run of the discussions already had in 6man with the same arguments and 
> the same participants doesn't seem useful.
>
> For a brief (sic) overview take a look at 672 messages already on the topic:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=header+insertion&f_list=ipv6 
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=header+insertion&f_list=ipv6>
> O.
>
> Might I, as a relatively disinterested observer of this discussion, humbly[1] 
> suggest that pointing the IETF list to a 672-message thread is not a way to 
> avoid re-running the discussion "with the same arguments and the same 
> participants". It would be significantly more useful if you, as chair and the 
> caller of the (apparently rough) consensus summarized the issue, explained 
> what you took the objection to be, and told us what you saw as the replies to 
> those objections that convinced you that WG had properly considered the issue 
> and that there was (rough) WG consensus to go with the text you ended up 
> with. Then folks who think you called it wrong can explain the essential 
> point they think you missed when you made that call. Having the rest of us 
> re-create your evaluation of the consensus by reading 672 messages is, at 
> best, inefficient.
Thanks for the suggestion. Ole will be working on summarizing the WG 
discussion. I also want to point out the IESG statement on IETF Last Calls at 
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/last-call-guidance.html 
<https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/last-call-guidance.html> which states

"If substantive discussion of a technical comment is needed, it is often 
appropriate to move that discussion to the WG list, once the comment has been 
made on the IETF list. "

I think the comment(s) under question fall(s) under that category. For this 
reason, I would like to loop the 6man WG mailing list into this discussion 
going forward.

Regards
Suresh

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature