On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote: > >> Its 'rough' consensus... >> I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for >> publication asap please. > > I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the v6ops group. Again, > haven't read all of the messages, but definitely get the impression that it > falls short of consensus.
If you disagree the wg chairs conclusions as far as the wg process outcome and the document shepherds report which can you can find here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/history/ Then you should consider talking to the responsible ad or an appeal to the IESG. As far as I am concerned the accusation that the process has gone off the rails is a seperate issue from the merits or lack thereof of the proposal. > And just to be clear on procedure: > > - you need more than rough consensus in v6ops, you need rough community-wide > consensus. This is an ietf last call... > - the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the > document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and > technical soundness. Informational status was at the behest of the iesg, we have been advised that an informational document may confer historical status on a standards track document. > The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
