IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 24 June 2011 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B6C21F84FA; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.113
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aMu7QgXxJhbC; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com (out3.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 672BF21F8500; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFED2040F; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:11:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:11:36 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=I0uOHzGN1eO5R85yi/C1OUE8jUc=; b=UYtQTEgXJ+wIp5Rs8BIipJ8yiw+KEfQLRi9vPog1/xLQPBUm/a47luleF2/Nrx9zmHkjL2lY1NgbNxX4SZu3ld4uil5NHV0E9S9DQkUON09WzBnY75LbTKxJktgfoQMeptdwsTyO59Pwy6mUCkCoggBr84qLJNh178I8W2zUXLc=
X-Sasl-enc: yYP7e4i7DGA4zbmWGjOXjxYV9C4XR5n1FqjkBrpOmi5c 1308946295
Received: from host65-16-145-177.birch.net (host65-16-145-177.birch.net [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 37173406B49; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:11:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-47--73392619"
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E04EC3F.9080207@dougbarton.us>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:11:29 -0400
Message-Id: <FBA6D753-531D-4918-B5B1-FB63ED64E288@network-heretics.com>
References: <19BA5B79-DC0B-4409-91A2-12FA94AE9523@vpnc.org> <4E03DDF8.1040806@stpeter.im> <4E03E9A9.2000300@gmail.com> <E1E0A4DF2DA94C08DB4F75B6@[192.168.1.3]> <4E04EC3F.9080207@dougbarton.us>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:11:43 -0000

On Jun 24, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:

> By "your document" above are you referring to Brian's http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory ? If so I would argue that the extensive WG discussion about both documents meets your criteria. Taken together the 2 documents represent a series of compromises between those of us whose opinion is "Kill 6to4 dead, yesterday" and those who would like to give it as graceful an exit as possible. 

Taken together, the message is confusing. 

And for those of you whose opinion is "KIll 6to4 dead, yesterday" - that's way beyond the scope of what v6ops was chartered to do.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email