If I may, it seems to me that several of these replies miss some
important points in the message from the chairs.
1) It became clear during the WG poll that the documents were not
complete. This is not a bad thing. We need to finish them.
2) The poll did indicate that there is interest in the documents.
3) Given that the documents are not complete, they can not be sent to
the IESG at this time. Until they are complete, a final decision on
what status they will be labelled with can not be made.
Hence, what can be done is either to adopt the documents as WG
documents, or not. Even if the chairs were to state an intended status
for the documents upon completion, that would have to be verified when
the final content was available.
The most important thing actually is the call for reviewers. If you
want to see any of the documents adopted by the working group, and
worked on, we need folks to step forward as reviewers. Folks who are
not the authors.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
An observer without a preference on outcomes.
PS: I think there is also some confusion about IETF processes. However,
I will not belabor the list with a rant on that. I will happily answer
off-list questions if it i helpful to individuals.
On 4/26/2012 2:14 PM, Antonio M. Moreiras wrote:
On 25-04-2012 22:41, Alain Durand wrote:
b) the number of MAP responses seem to be inflated, we see a disproportionate
number of response from some particular organizations. We also see a large
number of responses coming from people who have not participated before in the
working group. Also, it is apparent that a number of people have joined the
mailing list for the sole purpose of expressing support for MAP.
None of the above behaviors do any favors for the working group. We do need
participation in the official call for consensus from all the active
participants of the working group. As we mentioned before, in such calls,
silence is consent. Also, the inflated participation in the consensus call from
'new' members that have never participate in the discussion before, creates
noise that makes the results harder to read.
I regret so much this decision.
I, personaly, and also my team, have been following the work of this
IETF WG, and others regarding IPv6, for quite a long time. We are
involved with IPv6 dissemination. We do not participate actively here,
because we choose to prioritize other tasks. Sadly, the time and other
resources are always limited, and we can't contribute in all ways we
would like to.
I did choose to sign the list with this email address recently solely in
order to vote in this matter, because it is important and urgent, and I
wanted to express my support to MAP (but, more important than that, to
express my support on advancing only one of the options, MAP or 4rd-U),
and help the group to make the decision in a timely way. If I had the
slightest idea that this kind of behavior could prejudice the vote and
decision in any way, as it seems to have done, I wouldn't have voted. I
honestly thought the IETF was more open, and that newcomers were more
welcome. I am really, really sorry because I didn't know that it was not
expected that newcomers in a WG expressed their opnions, and that it
would be considered "noise", "inflating" the numbers.
Maybe it could be a bit more clear, when the vote was called, that
newcomers were not expected to express their opinions, and that only
those already discussing the question in the list for some time should
participate. I am not criticizing the process in anyway, just stating
that I could not understand it correctly before now.
Said that, I must add that I've not voted lightly. It was a choose based
on a careful reading and analysis of the proposals, of a technical point
of view, and on a good understanding of the current state of the IPv6
implementation, and current planning, in the local Internet market of
the country I live on, including local ISPs and local equipment
manufacturers.
I apologize for trying to contribute, helping the group to make what I
considered a very needed choose, based on my limited experience, and
ending up being just a noise generator, inflating the numbers. I am
feeling really bad about that.
Anyway, seeing the 75 x 0 votes to the 1st question being ignored, and a
decision that lead us to more indefinition regarding a usable stateless
transition technique based on A+P is very, very, disappointing.
It seems to me that with this new way forward we will loose the timing.
We will end up with an optimal and very elegant solution that will not
be used by anyone. Sadly, it seems to be better to forget the whole
idea, and put our efforts elsewhere.
Antonio M. Moreiras.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
