Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hilliard-v6ops-host-addr-update-00.txt

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Ted Lemon wrote:
> Nick, it's not actually up to you to determine consensus, and you do not
> seem to actually be describing a situation where there was a lack of
> consensus.   If you feel that there was indeed an error made by the
> chairs, who /were/ responsible for calling consensus, the right thing to
> do would be to appeal to the chairs, and if you are not satisfied by
> their response, to appeal to the IESG, and so on.

I'm not attempting to determine consensus, simply expressing an opinion
that there was substantial opposition to the principals behind a
sentence that was inserted into the draft, i.e. querying whether that
consensus existed to start with.  There isn't a problem with querying a
decision.

The difficulty with formally appealing the consensus call is that the
change was inserted into the document in Feb 2016, and there were
several more revisions of the document before it was published as a BCP
some months later, and there were no objections because it wasn't
obvious what it meant at the time.

As an aside, the fact that there is a good deal of disagreement on its
interpretation today makes it clear that that this sentence is open to
vastly different interpretations.

So procedurally, there was not a problem with the consensus process
which means that an appeal to the chairs / IESG / etc would be almost
certain to fail, not least because this happened some time ago.  The
only obvious way to deal with the problem is to bring it back to the
working group with an explicit statement of the semantic problem, which
is what has happened.

It would be useful for the chairs to express an opinion if a different
approach were more appropriate.

Nick