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

[Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 2, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Doug Barton wrote:

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.

IMO you're thinking about this the wrong way.  if a document is to be published with IETF's imprimatur, it needs to adhere to IETF's rules.  Those rules require, for a standards action, at least rough community-wide consensus.  

When a narrowly focused working group declares consensus within itself, that clearly doesn't speak for the whole IETF.  The fact that the consensus was quite rough even within the v6ops group should have been understood as a sign that the proposed action might not win consensus overall - especially given that several of the objections came from non-operators who are not well represented in v6ops.

Keith

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