On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
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.
I agree that it's a separate issue, and should be treated separately. Again, I
haven't read all of the discussion, probably won't have time to do that for
several more days, and will withhold a decision about any process appeal until
I've done so.
(And frankly, if IESG wants to sabotage 6to4 also, I doubt that a process
appeal would do any good. I'll argue vigorously for something that I think is
useful and/or important, but I have no interest in making hard-working people's
lives harder for no good reason.)
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...
indeed. I just wanted to counter the possibly-implied assertion that v6ops
rough consensus was sufficient.
- 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.
I don't have a problem with the idea that an Informational document can
describe the consequences of moving something to Historic. I have a serious
problem with the idea that a standards-track document can be moved off of the
standards track by less than an IETF Consensus process, or by ignoring the
criteria for standards-track actions. I haven't seen any evidence that IESG is
trying to do that - they are doing a Last Call after all. But I don't think we
want to set a precedent that removing something from the standards track is
easier or requires less scrutiny of the technical criteria than putting
something on the standards track.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf