RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

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

 



    > 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


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