On Jul 3, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Keith Moore <mo...@network-heretics.com> > wrote: >> And who says that "rough consensus of the entire IETF community" is that >> this draft should not be published? Were there public discussions to that >> effect that came to this conclusion? > > There's clearly a lack of consensus to support it. > > Nope. The v6ops chairs saw consensus in v6ops to support it. Can you point to > significant strength of opinion of the wider IETF community, but not in > v6ops, that has reason to oppose it?
That's not how it works. You have to get consensus in IETF, not in v6ops. (And it doesn't matter what you think of other people's reasons to oppose -historic.) > If all you can point to is the same people that were opposing it in v6ops, > then I think they don't count, because the rough consensus in v6ops was that > the document should be published. Your logic is flawed. When you separately sample two dissimilar groups it isn't statistically valid to combine the two samples. The correct way to think about it is that the consensus was very rough already in v6ops (even the official writeup says so), and it only moved further away from rough consensus when the comments from outside of v6ops were taken into account. I agree that the people who objected on v6ops and also objected on the ietf list shouldn't be counted twice as opposing the standards action. But when I did the tally, I found only a small amount of overlap between people opposing -historic in v6ops, and people opposing it on the ietf list. > So, I ask again: where are the statements made in opposition of this proposal > made outside of v6ops? Can you point to them? Some of them were posted to the IETF list. IESG may have received others privately. That is permitted by our process. Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
