Re: Adoption Call for "Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events"

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 13/7/20 00:52, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 9:47 AM Michael Richardson 
> <mcr+ietf@sandelman..ca <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
[...]
 >
> Actually I don't think so. I think the problem we faced is that once a 
> document is adopted it becomes a WG document and the sunk cost fallacy 
> prompts participants to continue to work on it. If instead we had 
> decided that there was not enough consensus to adopt the IPv6-only flag, 
> then the authors could have looked for other solutions. As it happened 
> the solution that ended up being more successful wasn't even in this WG, 
> it was in dhc.

Participants spend a quite different amount on energy on individual 
documents vs on wg documents (or documents that would otherwise clearly 
become wg documents).

As such, it is no surprise that when the ipv6-only flag I-D became a wg 
document, more people looked into it, and some felt that the document 
wasn't in shape to ship or continue progress.

Similarly, most of the folks who have had objections to Section to 4.5, 
had not argued against Section 4.5, and have also noted how they think 
Section 4.5 should be tweaked or replaced (you, for one, made one of 
such suggestions).

It would seem to me that adoption of a document is indeed about the 
deciding to actively work on a document, and, in the case of Section 
4.5, such work is what's needed to replace or tweak Section 4.5 such 
that the WG is happy with it.

I think it is hard to make any sort of progress on anything if folks are 
simply essentially going to object against text upon WG call for 
adoption without much detail, and without hints or guidance regarding 
how their objections can be addressed.

My understanding is that wg adoption implies the desire of the wg to 
actively work on a document, such that objections that can be addresses 
are addresses, and otherwise text that cannot be improved for the wg to 
have consensus is stripped out or moved into a separate document.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492