On Thursday, June 23, 2011 09:34:33 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-06-24 12:44, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/23/11 4:36 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
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/ball
ot/>. 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.
I can't speak for other IESG members, but I made a point of reading the
full text of every IETF LC message about this I-D, and I disagree with
the accuracy of your quick count. It's true that the Last Call did not
achieve unanimity or even smooth consensus, but my reading was that a
few folks were in the rough (although quite vocal) and that there was
rough consensus to publish. I would not have ballotted "No Objection"
otherwise. However, I freely admit that I might be wrong.
I think that's about right. There were several strong and very raional
opinions against this, including some who were not involved in the
similarly rough consensus in the WG discussion. But (speaking as a
co-author of one of the drafts being historicised) I'd say the balance of
opinion was to publish. However, it's a close call.
I'm relatively new to IETF procedure, so I may misunderstand, but that sounds
a lot more like voting than any kind of consensus, rough or otherwise.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf