ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?

2011-06-24 08:43:06
On Jun 24, 2011, at 8:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Keith,

On 2011-06-24 23:47, Keith Moore wrote:
...
1. Working groups often have strong biases and aren't representative of the 
whole community.  Put another way, a working group often represents only one 
side of a tussle, and working groups are often deliberately chartered in 
such a way as to minimize the potential for conflict within the group.   So 
when evaluating standards actions for the whole community, the consensus 
within a working group means little.   In this particular case, v6ops 
heavily represents the interests of operators (who are naturally interested 
in having IPv6 run smoothly in the long term) and works against the 
interests of applications developers (who are naturally interested in having 
transition mechanisms that allow them to ship code that uses IPv6 and an 
IPv6 programming model regardless of whether the underlying network supports 
it).

I suspect that operators are *severely* under-represented on this
list (ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org) because it is very noisy and operators have 
other
priorities. Most of them are probably unaware of this discussion,
in fact.

You're probably right about the representation of operators on the ietf list.  
But our process requires that we get consensus here in addition to in the 
working group.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf