At 06:16 25-06-2011, John Leslie wrote:
I quite agree that -6to4-to-historic doesn't satisfy such a statement;
and I don't believe the IESG process for Informational track documents
gives any assurance of "consensus of the IETF community".
It doesn't.
The IANA Considerations section raises an interesting question about
whether it is appropriate to have such action in an Informational RFC.
In the interests of truth in advertising, perhaps we should be
looking towards boilerplate more like:
"
" This document represents the consensus of the V6OPS WG...
That document would then have to be published as a WG Snapshot. That
label does not exist yet.
(Disclaimer: I date from when RFCs didn't claim any sort of consensus;
and I'd be happier if we simply avoided such claims on Informational
track RFCs.)
The objective was to document the level of consensus. It is
sometimes overlooked as the I-D does not contain the final
boilerplate text. I would be happy if such claims were avoided in
Informational RFCs as it makes the line between Standards-Track and
Informational fuzzy.
At 02:44 25-06-2011, Tim Chown wrote:
I had thought the call here was to solicit 'substantial' comments
about -advisory and -historic. Thus I assume people who, like me,
are in favour of both drafts progressing are not going to respond to
the list at all, which means the list isn't a reflection of
consensus - it's not a vote.
The wording in the Last Call announcement says "substantive
comments". The use of the word "substantive" is intentional (see
comment from "the Last Defender of Camelot" [1]). A response is
optional if there are already arguments in the I-D to counter the
"substantive comments". If there are strong objections, it is left
to the working group or author to see whether it is worthwhile to
address the objections.
A long time ago, there was an RFC [2], from which I'll quote:
"This group of people struggled with a broad range of issues in host
implementations of the Internet protocols, attempting to reconcile
theoretical and architectural concerns with the sometimes conflicting
imperatives of the real world. The present RFC recaps the results of
this struggle, with the issues that were settled and those that
remain for future work."
'However, not all issues were so easy; the working group struggled
with a number of deep and controversial technical issues. Where the
result was a reasonable consensus, then definite, firm
recommendations and requirements resulted. We list these settled
issues in Section 2. Section 2 also lists a number of areas where
the HR RFCs fill gaping holes in the current specifications by giving
extended discussions of particular issues.
However, in some other cases the working group was unable to reach a
crisp decision or even a reasonable consensus; we list these open
issues in Section 3. Future discussion is needed to ascertain which
of these issues really do have "right answers", and which can
reasonably be left as implementation choices.'
At 07:09 25-06-2011, John C Klensin wrote:
that problem. In matters of technical expertise, I believe the
IESG should balance WG opinion and IETF opinion very carefully,
giving great (but certainly not absolute) weight to issues that
the WG considered carefully and reached a conclusion about.
It's better when there is consensus on a reclassification to Historic.
With one major exception, I think that puts us pretty much on
the same page, including with some small disappointment at the
IESG for not telling the WG to do its job. The exception is
that I believe that every authoritative-sounding document that
is published in the IETF Stream and then ignored by industry
strikes a blow against IETF's overall credibility and that those
blows, however small, are cumulatively damaging.
Agreed.
At 07:36 25-06-2011, Noel Chiappa wrote:
organization. When you have a _significant_ minority which is really unhappy
with a decision, it's going to have poisonous effects which are going to
hamper the promulgation/adoption of that design/decision/etc. And this is in
fact what have seen happen, when we crossed this line before.
Agreed.
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02651.html
2. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1127.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf