On Thursday, June 23, 2011 09:34:33 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2011-06-24 12:44, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > On 6/23/11 4:36 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> Greetings again. The subject line is an honest question, not a > >> gripe. > >> > >> For those on the ietf@ mailing list, please see > >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/ball > >> ot/>. In short, the IESG just approved publication of > >> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic, even with what appears to be a > >> lack of consensus in the comments on the ietf@ mailing list. One AD > >> called it "pretty rough", but my quick count shows that it was not > >> rough at all: there were more people on the ietf@ against this than > >> in favor of it. > > > > I can't speak for other IESG members, but I made a point of reading the > > full text of every IETF LC message about this I-D, and I disagree with > > the accuracy of your quick count. It's true that the Last Call did not > > achieve unanimity or even smooth consensus, but my reading was that a > > few folks were in the rough (although quite vocal) and that there was > > rough consensus to publish. I would not have ballotted "No Objection" > > otherwise. However, I freely admit that I might be wrong. > > I think that's about right. There were several strong and very raional > opinions against this, including some who were not involved in the > similarly rough consensus in the WG discussion. But (speaking as a > co-author of one of the drafts being historicised) I'd say the balance of > opinion was to publish. However, it's a close call.
I'm relatively new to IETF procedure, so I may misunderstand, but that sounds a lot more like voting than any kind of consensus, rough or otherwise. Scott K _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
