ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2011-06-25 14:19:22

On Jun 24, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:

On Jun 24, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Doug Barton wrote:

I've been reviewing the WGLC comments. I haven't finished doing so yet,
but so far my impression is that the discussion was both thorough and
well-organized.

You might want to go further back in the archives than just the LC. There 
was quite a bit of discussion on both drafts.

I've read some of it, and participated in some of the discussion for 
-advisory.    Though my immediate question has been whether the WG really had 
rough consensus, and I don't think the other WG discussion matters too much 
in gauging that. 

The  question of what the wg thought at the time of the wg last call is 
supposed to be captured in the document shepherd writeup.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/history/

I belive that in the case of this documents the unresolvable but understood 
objections present in the wg process around this document are specifically 
called out.

Keith

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


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