On 25 Jun 2011, at 05:18, Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It seems that we have wide consensus to publish the advisory document, not so much for the "6to4 historic" part. Can we just publish the advisory and be done with this thread? I'm a little confused by this discussion. I had thought the call here was to solicit 'substantial' comments about -advisory and -historic. Thus I assume people who, like me, are in favour of both drafts progressing are not going to respond to the list at all, which means the list isn't a reflection of consensus - it's not a vote. I do agree with the comment that the call should be identifying new issues, and even if just one person raises several such (valid) issues, they should be considered as part of the process. While I'm now here, my personal view is that -advisory must be progressed and -historic should be progressed. Tim _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf