Lorenzo,
You pose very reasonable questions. I will try to reiterate them:
1) What are the criteria for determining consensus? What makes you think
that there was no consensus on 6-to-4-historic?
2) What makes you think that the new draft is just as good?
3) What makes you think that the new draft will do any better than
6-to-4-historic?
Responses follow:
1) Because we do not vote in the IETF, the process for determining
consensus is squishy. A simple majority does not win the day. A few strongly
held objections backed by even a scintilla of technical rational can increase
the size of the super-majority required to declare consensus. While it was not
clear that the IETF has achieved consensus regarding 6-to-4-historic, it also
was not clear that the IETF had not achieved consensus. In this case, we had a
choice between spending cycles arguing about consensus, or finding a solution
that everybody could live with.
2) IMHO, the new draft will not be as good as 6-to-4-historic. However, it
solves the operational problem by disabling 6-to-4 by default. That's much
better than nothing.
3) I have been working behind the scenes with a few of those who objected
to 6-to-4-historic. They didn't object to the new draft. However, I invite
those people to speak for themselves.
Ron
From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 2:55 PM
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica
<rbonica(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net<mailto:rbonica(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net>> wrote:
- In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS WG and
IETF consensus
If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak up soon.
Great, back to square one.
Is the reasoning behind the decision explained somewhere? My reading of the
threads on the subject in v6ops was that the opposition to 6to4-historic was a
small but vocal minority, and I thought that qualified as rough consensus. But
perhaps I missed some discussion.
Also, why do the author and the chairs think that the new draft will do any
better than 6to4-historic? I would assume that the same people who spoke up
against 6to4-historic will speak up against the new document, and since that
level of opposition was sufficient to prevent the publication of 6to4-historic,
it may be sufficient to prevent publication of the new document as well. If so,
we will have spent 3-6 months arguing about it for naught.
Please, nobody answer this question with "welcome to the IETF" :-)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf