--On Friday, 24 June, 2011 13:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> 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,
I see another problem here that, IMO, is complementary to the
issue that Paul raises and enough independent of that issue that
one could agree that the consensus determination was reasonable
but still wrong (I don't concede the first, but want to look at
the second).
I've never assumed that the LC process is a binary one, with the
only possible answers being "approve as written" or "complete
trash". It is a call for comments, not an approval vote. The
IESG clearly recognizes the distinction, although usually in
minor ways -- tuning of documents after IETF LC or IESG reviews
is almost certainly the norm rather than the exception and that
tuning is sometimes fairly significant.
In this case, it would not be hard to convince me that there was
pretty good IETF consensus that an unrestricted recommendation
for using 6to4 was appropriate. Even most of 6to4's strongest
advocates seem to agree that using it in stupid and naive ways
leads to bad outcomes. But consensus on that subject is not
consensus that moving the whole business to Historic is a good
idea. To paraphrase at least one comment, there is danger of
throwing the baby (and perhaps some of the plumbing fixtures)
away with the bath water.
What I saw was what appeared to me to be some fairly strong
arguments for looking at the problem in a different way -- a way
that I've seen no evidence the WG considered at all. That
would be to explore alternatives to the rather blunt instrument
of making a protocol specification historic: explaining what
needs to be done to get it right (your document does a lot of
that) and then figuring out ways to warn against the uses and
configurations that we all (or mostly) agree are bad news.
I would like to see evidence (or even a strong assertion) that
the IESG considered options other than "adopt package and more
6to4 to Historic" and "don't". I believe the LC discussions
call for that discussion, not boilerplate about rough consensus
around a narrow reading of the question that does not admit of
the possibility of other alternatives.
I'm not going to appeal this one, but I think that someone who
feels more strongly about it probably should.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf