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

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 2/2/15 2:07 AM, [e-mail] 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:[e-mail]]
> *Envoyé :* lundi 2 février 2015 08:12
> *À :* joel jaeggli; [e-mail]
> *Cc :* Gert Doering;
> [e-mail]; 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 document should be published, then it should not be published -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, <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
> Envoyé : samedi 31 janvier 2015 21:49
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Gert Doering
> Cc : [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; V6
> Ops List
> 
> Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
> 
> On 1/30/15 4:21 AM, [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>>  Envoyé : vendredi 30 janvier 2015 11:39 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed
>> IMT/OLN Cc : Gert Doering; Ole Troan; Fred Baker (fred);
>> [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; 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,
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
>  
>