Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, V

On 3 Feb 2017, at 16:09, Suresh Krishnan wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
> > On Feb 3, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> 
> > wrote:
> > On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:22, otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org 
> > <mailto:otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org> wrote:
> > are we re-spinning the debate on a WG-agreed text ?
> >
> > <tp>
> >
> > Yes, and I am sure that that is exactly what is intended.
> >
> > Then let's encourage people outside of 6man, with other points of 
> > view, and other arguments to come forward.
> > A re-run of the discussions already had in 6man with the same 
> > arguments and the same participants doesn't seem useful.
> > For a brief (sic) overview take a look at 672 messages already on the 
> > topic:
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=header+insertion&f_list=ipv6 
> > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=header+insertion&f_list=ipv6>
> > O.
> >
> > Might I, as a relatively disinterested observer of this discussion, 
> > humbly[1] suggest that pointing the IETF list to a 672-message thread 
> > is not a way to avoid re-running the discussion "with the same 
> > arguments and the same participants". It would be significantly more 
> > useful if you, as chair and the caller of the (apparently rough) 
> > consensus summarized the issue, explained what you took the objection 
> > to be, and told us what you saw as the replies to those objections 
> > that convinced you that WG had properly considered the issue and that 
> > there was (rough) WG consensus to go with the text you ended up with. 
> > Then folks who think you called it wrong can explain the essential 
> > point they think you missed when you made that call. Having the rest 
> > of us re-create your evaluation of the consensus by reading 672 
> > messages is, at best, inefficient.
> Thanks for the suggestion. Ole will be working on summarizing the WG 
> discussion.
Excellent. Thanks Ole.

> I also want to point out the IESG statement on IETF Last Calls at 
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/last-call-guidance.html 
> <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/last-call-guidance.html> which 
> states
> "If substantive discussion of a technical comment is needed, it is 
> often appropriate to move that discussion to the WG list, once the 
> comment has been made on the IETF list. "
> I think the comment(s) under question fall(s) under that category. For 
> this reason, I would like to loop the 6man WG mailing list into this 
> discussion going forward.
If it's a *new* substantive technical comment, I absolutely agree, that 
should go back to the WG list. However, if this is an old topic that the 
WG has already come to a conclusion on, bringing it back to the list is 
not useful unless something has changed; that just becomes a "pile on" 
session. That's why I suggested Ole summarize the issue first, and that 
should be copied to the IETF list. That way we can see whether the issue 
is "The WG missed this important aspect of the issue" (which should go 
back to the WG to discuss once it's properly formulated) or "The chair 
misevaluated the consensus" (which should probably be handled by you and 
the chair). Either way, we agree that a protracted rehash of the topic 
on the IETF list is not the right choice.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478