On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
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.
If you disagree the wg chairs conclusions as far as the wg process outcome and
the document shepherds report which can you can find here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/history/
Then you should consider talking to the responsible ad or an appeal to the
IESG. As far as I am concerned the accusation that the process has gone off the
rails is a seperate issue from the merits or lack thereof of the proposal.
And just to be clear on procedure:
- you need more than rough consensus in v6ops, you need rough community-wide
consensus.
This is an ietf last call...
- the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the
document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and
technical soundness.
Informational status was at the behest of the iesg, we have been advised that
an informational document may confer historical status on a standards track
document.
The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action.
Keith
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf