- I don't see anything in our documented processes that requires a greater degree of consensus to change an existing specification. Rather I see an expectation built into our process that undesirable or unworkable features will be removed as a standard progresses from proposed to draft to full standard. - I can understand a belief that 3/4 majority is on the rough edge of rough consensus. But even assuming that rough consensus requires a greater plurality, there was certainly a sufficient demonstration of opinion that any revision to existing specifications that did include site local was unlikely to gain consensus and that trying to fix site-local was not a useful expenditure of the WG's energy. And there was also growing evidence that we had not found a workable way to use site local, which would by itself be sufficient to bar site-local from advancing in grade along with the rest of IPv6. So even accepting that there was something less than consensus in the WG's decision, in some sense it's a moot point. Site-local was a dead end anyway, both politically and technically.