Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 27/01/2015 13:43, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Sure. But if I was one of the ~100k users concerned, I wouldn't want to
>> be told that I wasn't important. I think s/substantial/measurable/
>> should fix this.
>>
> 
> I see. Ok then Brian  you're a unique, precious snowflake, one in ten
> thousand. :-P
> 
> But seriously - no opposition to s/substantial/measurable/ - because it is,
> in fact, measurable.
> 
> 
>> Well, reviewing the emails I've archived, I see mild support for
>> formally obsoleting it and no strong opposition.
>>
> 
> I suppose my question was really only procedural: *can* we even obsolete an
> individual submission? It's not a document based on IETF consensus, so if
> IETF consensus was not necessary to publish it, then how can IETF consensus
> be sufficient to obsolete it?

Terminology alert: it's an *independent* submission, not an *individual*
submission (the latter is an IETF stream draft but with no associated WG).

So, your question is valid. I suggest we leave it as "obsoletes" for now
and let somebody with a higher IETF pay grade decide. Next time I bump
into the Independent Series Editor (which will be later this week
in Rotorua NZ, as it happens) I will ask if there's a precedent.

    Brian