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

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.

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 it seems to me that if there is no longer consensus in the WG that this document should be published, then it should not be published - regardless of what procedural steps the document has been through already.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