Ole, On 5/12/19 18:16, otr...@employees.org wrote: > Ron, > >> Point taken. Could you comment on the current state of WG consensus? > > The working group session in Singapore ended with what appeared to be a view > that we should continue work on both documents (Mark's and the Voyer draft). > For the state of the wg consensus, I haven't checked with Bob, but I think he > will agree with it being classified as "evolving".
I polled you about this decision (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/12Qwp_eeQT2EmbUrSxBLL5HTcnM), and you never responded. Suresh (INT AD) clarified this one list, here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Db6_SGfmeIDzaE56Ps5kUDCYEzY Suresh noted that there wasn't consensus call, even at the f2f meeting (not to mention that the list was never polled in this respect). I would say that it seems we have not been following the processes that should be followed. This has happened repeatedly over time, for this very same topic. The process seems to be biased, and thus unfair to the rest of the wg participants. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
