Re: [Roll] call for consensus for the RPL RPI / RH3 compression

On Jan 4, 2015, at 6:59 AM 1/4/15, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Michael,
> 
> Thanks for continuing to try to wrangle this situation.

Agreeing - thanks.

> [...]
>> Please: how do we proceed?
> 
> Consensus can sometimes be hard-won and slow. It is one of the things that makes people claim the IETF is slow. On the other hand, the alternative to consensus is, erm, no consensus.
> 
> In agreeing consensus, however, we may need to declare minority opinions "in the rough" [RFC7282] if there is a body of opinion that one way of doing things is preferred and if the drawbacks of that approach are clearly recognised and accepted.

Yes, and, in this particular case, there are at least 4 working groups involved, which will make determining and declaring consensus even more difficult.

> 
> I see the plugfest as an important way of reaching consensus on this issue. That is, if the plugfest shows that a particular approach is functional and not harmful it provides a strong case for documenting and standardising the mechanism.

Another outcome of the plugfest would be to assess the quality of the existing drafts (can an implementation be built from just the text in the draft) and the impact of the new mechanisms on other parts of the IPv6 suite as well as network operation.

> 
> Beyond that it may be most helpful to note the objections to the "preferred" approach and to write text that explains the concerns and how they are mitigated (for example, not sending traffic out of admin domains without applying some magic policy).

I don't know that we have enough detail and discussion, yet, to have determined a "preferred" approach. 

- Ralph

> 
> Adrian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll