Noel,
I didn't say that I was going to push draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic through
without running the process. I said that draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic has
made it all the way past IESG approval. There is an appeal on the table (at the
WG level) questioning whether draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic ever had WG
consensus. We will run the appeal process. If the WG chairs cannot justify WG
consensus, draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic stops dead in its tracks. If they
can justify WG consensus, the appellant can escalate the appeal to the IESG
(and to the IAB after that). If the appeal succeeds at any level,
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic is not published.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:44 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
> From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net>
>>> I think that I get it. There is no IETF consensus regarding the
>>> compromise proposed below. ...
>> But there is no rough consensus to do that either.
> That is the claim of an appeal on the table. Let's run the appeal
> process and figure out whether that claim is valid.
Sorry, this makes no sense.
You can't go ahead with draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic if there is no
basic consensus in the IETF as a whole to do so - and your previous
declaration (on Saturday) basically accepted that there was no such basic
consensus (otherwise why withdraw the ID).
So now there is going to be a reversal, and the document is going to go ahead
- i.e. you must now be taking the position that there _is_ basic consensus in
the IETF (without which you could not proceed the ID).
The effect of this sort of thing on the reputation of I* should be obvious
to all.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf