On 2011-06-24 12:44, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > 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. I think that's about right. There were several strong and very raional opinions against this, including some who were not involved in the similarly rough consensus in the WG discussion. But (speaking as a co-author of one of the drafts being historicised) I'd say the balance of opinion was to publish. However, it's a close call. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf