Basically, I approached this the way Peter did. One further point below though. On 24/06/11 02:15, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Said a different way, what needs to happen in IETF Last Call to overcome "we already discussed this in the WG" (which was the majority of the positive comments in this case)? Does a non-WG member need to do more, and if so what? In addition to the other factors already mentioned, I didn't see what I thought were significant new facts or issues being raised at the IETF LC. I think that such things are perhaps more likely to cause the IETF rough consensus to differ from that in the WG. In this case, it looked to me like people were bringing concerns already expressed in the WG to the attention of the wider community, which is a reasonable thing to do in cases like this where the WG consensus was already fairly rough. It could well be that I know so little about 6to4 that I was wrong in that conclusion of course, but then there's so much about which I know so little that I've gotten used to living with that risk;-) S. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf