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