Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 07/02/2011 19:22, Ronald Bonica wrote:
1)Because we do not vote in the IETF, the process for determining
consensus is squishy. A simple majority does not win the day. A few
strongly held objections backed by even a scintilla of technical
rational can increase the size of the super-majority required to declare
consensus. While it was not clear that the IETF has achieved consensus
regarding 6-to-4-historic, it also was not clear that the IETF had not
achieved consensus.  In this case, we had a choice between spending
cycles arguing about consensus, or finding a solution that everybody
could live with.

IMO that is the wrong goal. Consensus does not mean universal agreement. Trying to get "a solution that everybody could live with" all too often results in a product with no operational value.


Doug

--

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]