Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory dependency on draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

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@mercury.lcs.mit.edu] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:44 AM
>> To: ietf@ietf.org; v6ops@ietf.org
>> Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
>> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
>>
>>     > From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
>>
>>     >>> 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@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 