Fernando, >>> Point taken. Could you comment on the current state of WG consensus? >> >> The working group session in Singapore ended with what appeared to be a view >> that we should continue work on both documents (Mark's and the Voyer draft). >> For the state of the wg consensus, I haven't checked with Bob, but I think >> he will agree with it being classified as "evolving". > > I polled you about this decision > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/12Qwp_eeQT2EmbUrSxBLL5HTcnM), and > you never responded.
Sorry, which decision is that supposed to be? > Suresh (INT AD) clarified this one list, here: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Db6_SGfmeIDzaE56Ps5kUDCYEzY > > Suresh noted that there wasn't consensus call, even at the f2f meeting > (not to mention that the list was never polled in this respect). Right, neither of these two documents are adopted as working group documents. And perhaps a more correct phrasing above would be that "The working group session in Singapore ended with what appeared to be a view that work could continue on both of these documents". > I would say that it seems we have not been following the processes that > should be followed. This has happened repeatedly over time, for this > very same topic. The process seems to be biased, and thus unfair to the > rest of the wg participants. Which process are you talking about? Is that documented in an RFC? You seem to take it on yourself to represent the "rest of the wg participants", but from my perspective it looks like a few very loud voices. Perhaps we should let others speak up, if there is anything more to be said on this topic. Ole _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
