On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
Its 'rough' consensus...
I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
publication asap please.
I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the v6ops group. Again, haven't
read all of the messages, but definitely get the impression that it falls short
of consensus.
And just to be clear on procedure:
- you need more than rough consensus in v6ops, you need rough community-wide
consensus.
- the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the document
being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and technical
soundness.
The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf