Basically, I approached this the way Peter did. One further
point below though.
On 24/06/11 02:15, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Said a different way, what needs to happen in IETF Last Call to overcome "we
already discussed this in the WG" (which was the majority of the positive
comments in this case)? Does a non-WG member need to do more, and if so what?
In addition to the other factors already mentioned, I didn't
see what I thought were significant new facts or issues being
raised at the IETF LC. I think that such things are perhaps
more likely to cause the IETF rough consensus to differ from
that in the WG. In this case, it looked to me like people
were bringing concerns already expressed in the WG to the
attention of the wider community, which is a reasonable thing
to do in cases like this where the WG consensus was already
fairly rough.
It could well be that I know so little about 6to4 that I was
wrong in that conclusion of course, but then there's so much
about which I know so little that I've gotten used to living
with that risk;-)
S.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf