[v6ops] 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should be published, then it should not be published - regardless of what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> 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]
> 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; 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 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]
> >  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; 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 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>