Subject: I support draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-05

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:15:34 +0200

I support draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-05

I suggest adoption of draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-05

If adopted it will help my other works in IPv6-over-OCB a lot.

It is not expired.

(I hesitated a lot before posting this because I did not know who were 
the true authors; it was by lack of patience - I did not read to the 
end; the author list is towards the end; the 'bourbaki' is a pseudonym 
of some significance, well known; but the author names are there at the 
end).

Alex

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 05:52:01 +0200

On 19/4/19 18:15, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> the true authors; 

Who cares who wrote it? :-)

"If you read this line, remember not the hand that wrote it
Remember only the verse, songmaker’s cry, the one without tears
For I’ve given this its strength and it has become my only strength."

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 21:11:46 -0700

> On Apr 23, 2019, at 8:52 PM, Fernando Gont <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Writing docs under pseudonyms is a way to escape the IPR disclosures requirements of the IETF -- in short, a process violation. I don't think that the WG should adopt anonymous drafts.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 06:40:34 +0200

On 24/4/19 06:11, Christian Huitema wrote:
> Writing docs under pseudonyms is a way to escape the IPR disclosures
> requirements of the IETF -- in short, a process violation. I don't
> think that the WG should adopt anonymous drafts.

I'd bet you know more about this than myself, but... I just checked
RFC8179 (page 5), and it would seem to me the same requirements apply
whether you are an author or not?

For this particular case, it'd be kind of amusing if somebody were to
assert IPRs on...CIDR?

Anyway... my point was that an idea is good or bad irrespective of who
proposed it.

Thanks,

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:09:34 +1000

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-05#page-5

I see an Authors list. Whats the problem with Bourbaki as editor?

-G

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 2:47 PM Fernando Gont <[email-masked]> wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 22:07:47 +1200

It isn't in fact anonymous, just quirky.

Regards
    Brian
    (via tiny screen & keyboard)

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, 16:12 Christian Huitema, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> requirements of the IETF -- in short, a process violation. I don't think
> that the WG should adopt anonymous drafts.
>
> -- Christian Huitema

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 09:09:03 -0700

> On Apr 24, 2019, at 3:07 AM, Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Then I would object on another ground. I spent a lot of time when I was younger studying the Bourbaki books. None of the draft's authors are Field medal class mathematicians. They are abusing a famous respected name, and I don't find that amusing.

-- Christian Huitema