----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: "IETF-Discussion list" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 12:36 AM
Greetings again. The subject line is an honest question, not a gripe.
For those on the ietf@ mailing list, please see
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/ballot/>. In
short, the IESG just approved publication of draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic,
even with what appears to be a lack of consensus in the comments on the ietf@
mailing list. One AD called it "pretty rough", but my quick count shows that it
was not rough at all: there were more people on the ietf@ against this than in
favor of it. If the consensus in a WG for a document was the same as we saw on
ietf@ for this document, and the WG chair declared consensus anyway, there would
be some serious talks with that WG AD about the chairs.
For a document such as this, why even ask for IETF consensus if the IETF
consensus doesn't matter? There was a lot of good discussion and a fair number
of varied objections to approval of the document. It sounds like the WG was
strongly in favor of the document, which may be sufficient motivation to publish
it, but the intermediate step of asking for IETF consensus and then not paying
attention to the result then seems wasteful of IETF time.
If the IESG has a policy that "WG consensus trumps IETF consensus", that's
fine, but it should be a stated policy so we know where to spend our time.
I have always seen that as part of our procedures. The IETF Last Call is mostly
about objections, about problems missed, about unforeseen interactions with
other work. Most of those who spoke up in support of a WG Last Call do not go
on to support the IETF Last Call, while those who object most strenuously in a
WG Last Call tend to repeat their objections at an IETF Last Call, so I have
always taken as axiomatic that the IESG would factor in all the support
expressed in a WG Last Call into the judgement of consensus on an IETF Last
Call, as opposed to a mere count of e-mails to the IETF list during the IETF
Last Call.
The I-D in question seems to fit this pattern perfectly.
Tom Petch
If this document is special for some reason (for example, because it was about
policy instead of being a protocol) and therefore the IESG measures consensus
differently, that too is fine if we all know that ahead of time. Even a policy
of "more than a dozen IETF regulars must object on ietf@ before we will consider
overturning a WG" is fine, as long as it is a stated policy. If the IESG has a
policy that says "the way we count in IETF Last Call is different than the way
we expect Working Group chairs to count in WG Last call", that's fine as well.
None of that is obvious from the ballot comments that are visible to the
community, however.
Guidance from the IESG for our future participation in IETF Last Call
discussions would be greatly appreciated. We try to save you folks time and
effort; such guidance would return the favor to us.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf