Re: [v6ops] Consensus call on draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile ?

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 02 February 2015 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F35BE1A03B3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:41:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gjs_EQYtsvqr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CE6F1A03A5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mb-aye.local ([192.252.253.126]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t12GfM34069956 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:41:23 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <54CFA8B2.2030707@bogus.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:41:22 -0600
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/34.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, "v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
References: <CAKD1Yr1hHAVMZbXZuAtNExXw8TqUSDhzGBY5OA2fr9jMZgd9eQ@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490366F@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490366F@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="r8sJ4IXcA4hAeLD6kXVwKViLaUkgAOd1p"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/2JV2YP-gvSDf4BDOoUCt9A7-Eq8>
Cc: "draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Consensus call on draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile ?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:41:29 -0000

On 2/2/15 2:07 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> Re-,
> 
>  
> 
> I’m not a chair nor an AD but, but as an editor of the document, I don’t
> see what changed since the consensus was declared for this document
> SEVERAL times.

It's not your role to declare consensus.

as I noted previously:

...
One point on that. Part of the reason we are engaged canvasing, is that
Brian's discuss questioned my interpretation of the consensus call.

Given that I conceded from the outset that the call is somewhat narrow,
one of the questions before us as a w.g. and the ietf community is, is
that consensus more unequivocal?  Brian I believe is willing to extended
the benefit of the doubt. So am I, but it's the working group's document...
...


> 
> What’s new in the document that breaks the consensus?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Med
> 
>  
> 
> *De :*Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com]
> *Envoyé :* lundi 2 février 2015 08:12
> *À :* joel jaeggli; v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> *Cc :* Gert Doering;
> draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org; V6 Ops List;
> BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> *Objet :* Consensus call on draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile ?
> 
>  
> 
> [Editing subject for for visibility; +v6ops-chairs since this is their
> bailiwick]
> 
>  
> 
> Forgive me for being ignorant on these procedural points, but... it
> seems to me that if there is no longer consensus in the WG that this
> document should be published, then it should not be published -
> regardless of what procedural steps the document has been through
> already. Am I mistaken?
> 
>  
> 
> If I am correct, then we should make sure that we still have consensus
> to proceed before we do anything else. The response to this thread
> suggests that there may not be consensus, but hopefully it deciding the
> question should be as simple as issuing another consensus call.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Lorenzo
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:40 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Joel,
> 
> Which consensus are your talking about?: The one for adopting the
> document as a WG item?, the first one declared by the WG before sending
> it to the IESG? the second one declared by the WG to send the document
> to the IESG?, or the IETF consensus that was declared before the IESG
> starts its review?
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : joel jaeggli [mailto:joelja@bogus.com <mailto:joelja@bogus.com>]
> Envoyé : samedi 31 janvier 2015 21:49
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Gert Doering
> Cc : draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org
> <mailto:draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org>; V6
> Ops List
> 
> Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
> 
> On 1/30/15 4:21 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>> Re-,
>>
>> With all due respect, I'm afraid we are not discussing whether the
>> document is needed or not but (as I see it) whether the new version
>> does not break the WG consensus that was declared for the version
>> sent to the IESG. I recall that both the WG and IETF consensus were
>> declared for the version sent to the IESG.
> 
> One point on that. Part of the reason we are engaged canvasing, is that
> Brian's discussed questioned my interpretation of the consensus call.
> Given that I conceded from the outset that the call is somewhat narrow,
> one of the questions before us as a w.g. and the ietf community is, is
> that consensus more unequivocal?  Brian I believe is willing to extended
> the benefit of the doubt. So am I, but it's the working groups document...
> 
> thanks
> 
> joel
> 
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Cheers, Med
>>
>> -----Message d'origine----- De : Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net
> <mailto:gert@space.net>]
>>  Envoyé : vendredi 30 janvier 2015 11:39 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed
>> IMT/OLN Cc : Gert Doering; Ole Troan; Fred Baker (fred);
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org
> <mailto:draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org>; V6 Ops
>> List Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last
>> call
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 09:12:16AM +0000,
>> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>>> Can you please help us identifying technical flaws that you think
>>> need to be fixed in the document?
>>
>> I don't think there is a need for this document, and I can't truly
>> see it reflecting WG consensus.  So it's more fundamental than just
>> individual technical issues.
>>
>> For the specifics, everything that Lorenzo said.
>>
>> Gert Doering -- NetMaster
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
>  
>