Hi Paul,
At 15:36 23-06-2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:
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.
Assuming that there was rough consensus (I agree with you that it was
not rough at all), the document would still not satisfy the following
statement:
"It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by
the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
The IETF Last Call is to get cross-area review and, as others have
pointed out, to provide an opportunity for people who have not read
the WG document previously to comment. Sometimes there is a rehash
of the WG discussions. Although that might be viewed by some
participants as "wasting IETF time", it is part of the cost of the process.
If an objection was raised, the IESG might have to argue that the
document represents the consensus of the IETF community. That is
generally based on the IETF Last Call comments and not discussions
within the WG Cloud.
If a WG chair declared consensus on an issue like this, the
responsible AD would hear about it. If the IESG declared consensus
on an issue like this, complain to NomCom about it.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf