Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:36:02 +0100

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:14:35PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Peter Hessler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > As an implementation, OpenBSD will never add such a crazy thing.  And
> > you know that many other implementations won't do so either.
> >
> > I strongly oppose this draft.
> 
> Bit late to object to that text now I'm afraid.

You are overstepping, Peter's message is submitted well within the
proper time window:

	The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
	consider the following document:
	- 'IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture'
	  <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> as Internet Standard

	The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
	final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
	[email-masked] mailing lists by 2017-03-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
	sent to [email-masked] instead. 

> A good time to object would have been 19 years ago when the text you
> object to became the standard:

You realise that new people are born every day, and not everyone who
participates in IETF is 50+ years old? Even I were not of legal age 19
years ago.

Your comment borders on the verge of discrimation based on age. This
violates the fundamentals on which we work together to standardise
technologies.

Comments which imply "you should've been there" are both demeaning
and derogatory to operators who come to IETF to improve the current
state of affairs.

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:46:45 +0900

> and derogatory to operators who come to IETF to improve the current

My intention was not to imply anything of the sort. I apologize if that was
how it was received. FWIW I wasn't there when the standard was written,
either.

My point was a purely technical one: this is not new text or a new
proposal. It is the current text of the standard, and has been the current
text of the standard for almost 20 years. Opposing this document will
prevent this document from becoming a standard, but it won't prevent that
text from becoming a standard because it is *already* the standard.