IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Fri, 24 June 2011 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
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 E815111E8210 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 kspx5MCJRHdi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D6D11E8212 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 28091 invoked by uid 399); 24 Jun 2011 20:45:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO 65-241-43-4.globalsuite.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@65.241.43.4) by mail2.fluidhosting.com with ESMTPAM; 24 Jun 2011 20:45:33 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 65.241.43.4
X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us
Message-ID: <4E04F76B.5040807@dougbarton.us>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:45:31 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110429 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Subject: Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?
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> <FBA6D753-531D-4918-B5B1-FB63ED64E288@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <FBA6D753-531D-4918-B5B1-FB63ED64E288@network-heretics.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 20:45:57 -0000

On 06/24/2011 13:11, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> By "your document" above are you referring to
>> Brian'shttp://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.

I'm not sure why you would think that. It fits in with a grand IETF 
tradition. :)

> 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.

ENONSEQUITUR



-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email