On Jul 3, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jul 3, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
Some of them were posted to the IETF list. IESG may have received others
privately. That is permitted by our process.
This is a frustrating conversation. Everybody who supported the consensus
in v6ops is an IETF participant, and their wishes count toward the IETF
consensus.
Yes their wishes do count. But the consensus was marginal even in v6ops, and
v6ops isn't representative of the breadth of interests in the entire IETF. It
should hardly be surprising that a very rough consensus within a working group
doesn't translate to a rough consensus within IETF as a whole.
v6ops isn't special in this regard. The same is true for any other working
group. Unfortunately, it's really easy for a working group that is focused on
a particular set of concerns, to neglect concerns from the wider community.
The draft is good. It encourages people to do the right things: keep 6to4
relays active, but not ship products with 6to4 enabled by default. This
works for everyone—for people like me who are using 6to4 for our IPv6
connectivity, it works because the relays stay up. For people who do not
have global IPv4 addresses, they do not wind up with IPv6 routes that go
nowhere. It certainly serves Keith Moore's needs, no matter how vehemently,
nor how often, he may insist that it does not.
You are not in a good position to evaluate what I need.
So this really does look like another IETF night of long knives, where a good
draft gets scuttled in secret because a few very loud people manage to create
enough of a fuss to make the person or persons calling the consensus feel
like they're going to get fricasseed if they call the consensus in favor of
the draft.
No, it's not a good draft. It's misleading in many places. And the label of
Historic is simply inappropriate for something that is still quite useful for
many people and for which no good replacement yet exists.
The "right things" that you refer to get obscured by the overall message of the
Historic label. And the -advisory draft says the "right things" much better.
Have we actually had a formal consensus call for the IETF? Who called the
consensus? Can we have a summary? I haven't seen one.
That's what the IETF Last Call was. IESG is supposed to evaluate consensus as
well as technical merit in its balloting.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf