On Jun 24, 2011, at 8:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Keith, > > On 2011-06-24 23:47, Keith Moore wrote: > ... >> 1. Working groups often have strong biases and aren't representative of the >> whole community. Put another way, a working group often represents only one >> side of a tussle, and working groups are often deliberately chartered in >> such a way as to minimize the potential for conflict within the group. So >> when evaluating standards actions for the whole community, the consensus >> within a working group means little. In this particular case, v6ops >> heavily represents the interests of operators (who are naturally interested >> in having IPv6 run smoothly in the long term) and works against the >> interests of applications developers (who are naturally interested in having >> transition mechanisms that allow them to ship code that uses IPv6 and an >> IPv6 programming model regardless of whether the underlying network supports >> it). > > I suspect that operators are *severely* under-represented on this > list ([email protected]) because it is very noisy and operators have other > priorities. Most of them are probably unaware of this discussion, > in fact.
You're probably right about the representation of operators on the ietf list. But our process requires that we get consensus here in addition to in the working group. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
