On Nov 14, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: > PS: As this discussion continues, and as you didn’t answer my question about > when the IESG should be informed, I hope you won’t find inappropriate my > opening the channel now.
Normally the way it works is that the working group chairs do a consensus call; if someone believes that the consensus was called incorrectly, then that person appeals to the chairs. If the chairs do not agree, that person would then appeal to the responsible AD. If the responsible AD doesn't agree, then that person would appeal to the IESG as a whole. It is true that double translation has the problem that the DF bit is not communicated through. This is a limitation of the MAP-T specification. I've asked the authors about this, and they did not deny that this limitation exists, so your claim that the authors are trying to conceal it seems a bit un-collegial. As I said, the working group did consider this issue, and it was not a factor in the coin toss. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
