- I don't see anything in our documented processes that requires a
greater degree of consensus to change an existing specification.
Rather I see an expectation built into our process that undesirable
or unworkable features will be removed as a standard progresses from
proposed to draft to full standard.
- I can understand a belief that 3/4 majority is on the rough edge of rough
consensus. But even assuming that rough consensus requires a greater
plurality, there was certainly a sufficient demonstration of opinion
that any revision to existing specifications that did include site local
was unlikely to gain consensus and that trying to fix site-local was
not a useful expenditure of the WG's energy. And there was also growing
evidence that we had not found a workable way to use site local, which would
by itself be sufficient to bar site-local from advancing in grade along
with the rest of IPv6. So even accepting that there was something less than
consensus in the WG's decision, in some sense it's a moot point. Site-local
was a dead end anyway, both politically and technically.