On 6/23/11 4:36 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Greetings again. The subject line is an honest question, not a > gripe. > > For those on the ietf@ mailing list, please see > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/ballot/>. > In short, the IESG just approved publication of > draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic, even with what appears to be a > lack of consensus in the comments on the ietf@ mailing list. One AD > called it "pretty rough", but my quick count shows that it was not > rough at all: there were more people on the ietf@ against this than > in favor of it. I can't speak for other IESG members, but I made a point of reading the full text of every IETF LC message about this I-D, and I disagree with the accuracy of your quick count. It's true that the Last Call did not achieve unanimity or even smooth consensus, but my reading was that a few folks were in the rough (although quite vocal) and that there was rough consensus to publish. I would not have ballotted "No Objection" otherwise. However, I freely admit that I might be wrong. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf