On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote: > Its 'rough' consensus... > I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for > publication asap please. I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the v6ops group. Again, haven't read all of the messages, but definitely get the impression that it falls short of consensus. And just to be clear on procedure: - you need more than rough consensus in v6ops, you need rough community-wide consensus. - the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and technical soundness. The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf