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

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

> On May 6, 2019, at 2:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> whoever shepherds this draft should note this.
> 
> Actually, no, they shouldn't, because they should reach their
> conclusion based on the technical arguments.

Actually, they should, because in their notes to the IESG they are asked whether anyone has threatened to appeal. Job threatened to appeal, and is highlighting the fact with this sentence.

And for the record, Job, Nick, and Sander are not the only ones that are not members of the putative consensus. I have stated (would have to look it up to give you the link to the email and the date) that IMHO the benefits are minor and there is a security loophole. My issues remain unaddressed. So I'm part of the anti-consensus. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.

As to "rough consensus" and its nature, the way I have interpreted it multiple working groups - including the IESG - has been that if I have a person that has an issue and simply won't shut up, I focus on listening to the person and making sure that they are heard. The concept is that the majority is often wrong, but a minority may have noticed an issue that will turn out to be important. So it is important to listen carefully to that minority. Their view is only set aside when the working group concludes that they simply are not interested in having the issue resolved, and they are the only speaker. If I have multiple speakers - and especially, in matters of operation such as this one, operational speakers - it's not "rough consensus", it's "failure to achieve consensus."

My $0.02.