Yes, I'm planning to check that in AUTH48 and wordsmith it as necessary.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-07-06 14:22, C. M. Heard wrote:
Greetings,
I note that draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-02, now approved for
publication and in the RFC Editor's queue, has a minor dependency on
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic, specifically at the end of
Section 1 (bottom of p. 3):
"A companion document [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic] proposes
to reclassify 6to4 as Historic. However, this will not remove
the millions of existing hosts and customer premises equipments
that implement 6to4. Hence, the advice in this document remains
necessary."
That may need to be changed (e.g., in AUTH48), depending on the
outcome of the pending appeal against draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic.
//cmh
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Ronald Bonica wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf