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