On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
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.
I agree that it's a separate issue, and should be treated separately. Again, I haven't read all of the discussion, probably won't have time to do that for several more days, and will withhold a decision about any process appeal until I've done so.
(And frankly, if IESG wants to sabotage 6to4 also, I doubt that a process appeal would do any good. I'll argue vigorously for something that I think is useful and/or important, but I have no interest in making hard-working people's lives harder for no good reason.) 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...
indeed. I just wanted to counter the possibly-implied assertion that v6ops rough consensus was sufficient. - 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.
I don't have a problem with the idea that an Informational document can describe the consequences of moving something to Historic. I have a serious problem with the idea that a standards-track document can be moved off of the standards track by less than an IETF Consensus process, or by ignoring the criteria for standards-track actions. I haven't seen any evidence that IESG is trying to do that - they are doing a Last Call after all. But I don't think we want to set a precedent that removing something from the standards track is easier or requires less scrutiny of the technical criteria than putting something on the standards track.
Keith
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf