On Jul 3, 2011, at 2:37 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jul 3, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Keith Moore wrote: >> Some of them were posted to the IETF list. IESG may have received others >> privately. That is permitted by our process. > > This is a frustrating conversation. Everybody who supported the consensus > in v6ops is an IETF participant, and their wishes count toward the IETF > consensus.
Yes their wishes do count. But the consensus was marginal even in v6ops, and v6ops isn't representative of the breadth of interests in the entire IETF. It should hardly be surprising that a very rough consensus within a working group doesn't translate to a rough consensus within IETF as a whole. v6ops isn't special in this regard. The same is true for any other working group. Unfortunately, it's really easy for a working group that is focused on a particular set of concerns, to neglect concerns from the wider community. > The draft is good. It encourages people to do the right things: keep 6to4 > relays active, but not ship products with 6to4 enabled by default. This > works for everyone—for people like me who are using 6to4 for our IPv6 > connectivity, it works because the relays stay up. For people who do not > have global IPv4 addresses, they do not wind up with IPv6 routes that go > nowhere. It certainly serves Keith Moore's needs, no matter how vehemently, > nor how often, he may insist that it does not. You are not in a good position to evaluate what I need. > So this really does look like another IETF night of long knives, where a good > draft gets scuttled in secret because a few very loud people manage to create > enough of a fuss to make the person or persons calling the consensus feel > like they're going to get fricasseed if they call the consensus in favor of > the draft. No, it's not a good draft. It's misleading in many places. And the label of Historic is simply inappropriate for something that is still quite useful for many people and for which no good replacement yet exists. The "right things" that you refer to get obscured by the overall message of the Historic label. And the -advisory draft says the "right things" much better. > Have we actually had a formal consensus call for the IETF? Who called the > consensus? Can we have a summary? I haven't seen one. That's what the IETF Last Call was. IESG is supposed to evaluate consensus as well as technical merit in its balloting. Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
