On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Keith Moore wrote: 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.
If you disagree the wg chairs conclusions as far as the wg process outcome and the document shepherds report which can you can find here:
Then you should consider talking to the responsible ad or an appeal to the IESG. As far as I am concerned the accusation that the process has gone off the rails is a seperate issue from the merits or lack thereof of the proposal. And just to be clear on procedure:
- you need more than rough consensus in v6ops, you need rough community-wide consensus.
This is an ietf last call... - the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and technical soundness.
Informational status was at the behest of the iesg, we have been advised that an informational document may confer historical status on a standards track document.
The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action. Keith _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops@xxxxxxxxhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf