On Jun 24, 2011, at 8:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Keith, > > On 2011-06-24 23:47, Keith Moore wrote: > ... >> 1. Working groups often have strong biases and aren't representative of the whole community. Put another way, a working group often represents only one side of a tussle, and working groups are often deliberately chartered in such a way as to minimize the potential for conflict within the group. So when evaluating standards actions for the whole community, the consensus within a working group means little. In this particular case, v6ops heavily represents the interests of operators (who are naturally interested in having IPv6 run smoothly in the long term) and works against the interests of applications developers (who are naturally interested in having transition mechanisms that allow them to ship code that uses IPv6 and an IPv6 programming model regardless of whether the underlying network supports it). > > I suspect that operators are *severely* under-represented on this > list (ietf@xxxxxxxx) because it is very noisy and operators have other > priorities. Most of them are probably unaware of this discussion, > in fact. You're probably right about the representation of operators on the ietf list. But our process requires that we get consensus here in addition to in the working group. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf