On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > If you disagree the wg chairs conclusions as far as the wg process outcome > and the document shepherds report which can you can find here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/history/ > Then you should consider talking to the responsible ad or an appeal to the > IESG. As far as I am concerned the accusation that the process has gone off > the rails is a seperate issue from the merits or lack thereof of the proposal.
I agree that it's a separate issue, and should be treated separately. Again, I haven't read all of the discussion, probably won't have time to do that for several more days, and will withhold a decision about any process appeal until I've done so. (And frankly, if IESG wants to sabotage 6to4 also, I doubt that a process appeal would do any good. I'll argue vigorously for something that I think is useful and/or important, but I have no interest in making hard-working people's lives harder for no good reason.) >> And just to be clear on procedure: >> >> - you need more than rough consensus in v6ops, you need rough community-wide >> consensus. > > This is an ietf last call... indeed. I just wanted to counter the possibly-implied assertion that v6ops rough consensus was sufficient. >> - the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the >> document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and >> technical soundness. > > Informational status was at the behest of the iesg, we have been advised that > an informational document may confer historical status on a standards track > document. I don't have a problem with the idea that an Informational document can describe the consequences of moving something to Historic. I have a serious problem with the idea that a standards-track document can be moved off of the standards track by less than an IETF Consensus process, or by ignoring the criteria for standards-track actions. I haven't seen any evidence that IESG is trying to do that - they are doing a Last Call after all. But I don't think we want to set a precedent that removing something from the standards track is easier or requires less scrutiny of the technical criteria than putting something on the standards track. Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
