Re: Confirmation to advance: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Ole Troan wrote on 29/04/2019 11:02:
> At the 6man meeting at IETF 104 in Prague there was support to close
> the working group last call and advance 
> draft-ietf-6man-ipv6only-flag-05 to the IESG.
> 
> This call is to confirm that decision on the mailing list.
> 
> Please give objections and comments to this decision to the mailing
> list, by 2019-05-13.

Ole,

There have been extensive objections to this draft during the various 
discussions on the WG, during which a wide variety of fundamental 
problems were raised which were either left unaddressed or were only 
partially addressed.  Some relatively minor edits were introduced in 
-05, and I believe only a single comment was made about -05 on the 
mailing list, which incidentally did not indicate support.

Very few of the objections I've raised over the last 18 months have 
actually been addressed to the point that I'm happy with them.  I didn't 
raise them again in -05 because I assumed that they were still 
outstanding, as they were neither addressed adequately on the mailing 
list or in the draft itself.

Last September, the document moved to WGLC without prior notice to the 
mailing list that this would happen.  This was a surprising move, given 
the extent of the objections over the lifetime of the document, and the 
minimal scope of the changes in -02.  It was remarkable was that the 
scale of the historical disagreement about this document was ignored.

Now again, after another period of quiet and again, after only minimal 
changes, you're proposing moving the document forward.

So, is this ID proceeding on a point of procedure at this point?  I.e. 
is the the slate going to be wiped clean every time an update is issued, 
no matter how minor, and all previous objections are automatically 
invalidated?

If so, I'm inclined to think that this is bordering on abuse of process, 
but if it's the case, please let us know and I'll bring up all the 
previous issues that haven't been addressed.  Again.

Nick