> From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> I think that I get it. There is no IETF consensus regarding the
>>> compromise proposed below. ...
>> But there is no rough consensus to do that either.
> That is the claim of an appeal on the table. Let's run the appeal
> process and figure out whether that claim is valid.
Sorry, this makes no sense.
You can't go ahead with draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic if there is no
basic consensus in the IETF as a whole to do so - and your previous
declaration (on Saturday) basically accepted that there was no such basic
consensus (otherwise why withdraw the ID).
So now there is going to be a reversal, and the document is going to go ahead
- i.e. you must now be taking the position that there _is_ basic consensus in
the IETF (without which you could not proceed the ID).
The effect of this sort of thing on the reputation of I* should be obvious
to all.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf