ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Saying no (was: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt> (Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 Network) to Informational RFC)

2014-03-28 01:43:36
Hi Andrew

I think if the IETF has strong objections with engineering reasons, then it
is already a NO. That document should not even get to IESG. We only need
IESG decision (saying yes or no) when we all in IETF agree with consensus.
All IETF WGs should adapt/amend their document to total IETF consensus
(that is WGs interaction).

AB

On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:34:22PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:

   The sad truth is, the IESG no longer has the spare cycles to "Just
say No."

I was on the receiving end of an IESG that simply stalled a document
until the WG changed its approach, because of IETF concerns, so I
disagree with that claim.  But if it is true, then we might as well
give up.  If there's weak IETF consensus (with some strong objections)
to a document that comes from a WG and has strong consensus inside the
WG, the _only_ people who can say no are the IESG; and they must.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com <javascript:;>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>