Yes, I'm planning to check that in AUTH48 and wordsmith it as necessary. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-07-06 14:22, C. M. Heard wrote: > Greetings, > > I note that draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-02, now approved for > publication and in the RFC Editor's queue, has a minor dependency on > draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic, specifically at the end of > Section 1 (bottom of p. 3): > > > "A companion document [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic] proposes > to reclassify 6to4 as Historic. However, this will not remove > the millions of existing hosts and customer premises equipments > that implement 6to4. Hence, the advice in this document remains > necessary." > > That may need to be changed (e.g., in AUTH48), depending on the > outcome of the pending appeal against draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic. > > //cmh > > On Tue, 5 Jul 2011, Ronald Bonica wrote: >> Noel, >> >> I didn't say that I was going to push >> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic through without running the >> process. I said that draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic has made it >> all the way past IESG approval. There is an appeal on the table >> (at the WG level) questioning whether >> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic ever had WG consensus. We will >> run the appeal process. If the WG chairs cannot justify WG >> consensus, draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic stops dead in its >> tracks. If they can justify WG consensus, the appellant can >> escalate the appeal to the IESG (and to the IAB after that). If >> the appeal succeeds at any level, >> draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic is not published. >> >> Ron >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:44 AM >> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx; v6ops@xxxxxxxx >> Cc: jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic >> >> > 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 > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf