Re: [v6ops] IPv6 link-local and URLs @ IETF119

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 7:37 AM Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > > Why again is it not in the IESG queue ? Is this not something that
> 6MAN would have to agree upon,
> > > aka: stop pursuing the document, stop discussing Murrays DISCUSS ?
>

It has passed through the IESG queue.  It's still sitting in "IESG
Evaluation" state because it hasn't been moved to its next step (either
"Approved, "Dead", or back to the WG for more development), which isn't
uncommon for documents that need adjustment of some kind before proceeding,
especially when there exist one or more unresolved DISCUSS positions, or
when it hasn't enough ballot positions on the record to support approval.

> The IESG is at liberty to return a document to a WG when it has no chance
> of getting approved in its present form.
>
> Ok. Did this happen ?


Not as of right now.  It's done at the supporting AD's discretion.


> No IESG member beside Murray had a discuss, and it would be a sad state of
> affairs if now all of a sudden, the rest of the IESG would buy into his
> business argument.
>

Rob also has a DISCUSS, though it is unrelated.  My DISCUSS is expressly
supported by Francesca at least.  A handful of other ADs are about to join
the IESG and will have an opportunity to express their positions should
they choose.  The absence of express support from others in their ballot
positions isn't indicative that they do or don't support my position.  If
you want to poll them to be more explicit, you certainly could.

(Rob's DISCUSS will expire tonight, but I wouldn't be surprised to see one
of the incoming ADs pick its issues up.)

An example refrain from these discussions in the hallway track goes like
this: "How would 6MAN react if HTTPBIS started registering V6 options
without talking to anyone?"

I don't know what you mean by a "business argument".  I think the technical
details are one concern, but the other -- perhaps larger -- issue is that
changes in URL space impacting the web coming from 6MAN without support (or
in some cases garnering explicit objection or rejection) from WHATWG, W3C,
or even our own HTTP community here (HTTPBIS or HTTPDIR, for instance) is
cause for alarm.  You can look to the ARTART review for some of the
specific technical issues that led to this position.  Proposed alternatives
more palatable to those communities have been presented but rejected.
There have also been arguments presented claiming the adverse feedback is
in the rough, or that they need to be summarily dismissed because this work
is important.  I found those to be unpersuasive.  Thus, to date, the issues
raised have not been resolved, and my ballot stands.

I have been threatened with an appeal if I don't get out of the way, and we
have been threatened with an appeal if I do and this document gets
approved.  We have been encouraged to show leadership by forcing this
forward, dissent be damned.  But I don't think we should operate that way
when other more cooperative options exist.  Frankly, as I said at the WG
chairs forum in Prague, I would've welcomed[1] the appeal to the IESG so
that we might make progress in one direction or another, and I don't have
to be the focus of 6MAN's displeasure, but I would also have found the
resulting procedural maelstrom to be a rather unfortunate use of valuable
resources.

In short, I don't dispute that this has 6MAN consensus to proceed, but
based on the foregoing, I am not convinced that it has IETF consensus to
proceed.  That's mandatory for a Proposed Standard, and its absence plainly
meets the DISCUSS criteria as published.

I will attempt to be at both 6MAN on Thursday and HTTPBIS on Friday to
participate in discussion as needed, but I have conflicts during both slots
with my own working groups so I can't make any promises.  I welcome the
recent appearance of alternative proposals in those venues.

-MSK

[1] Past tense, because RFC 2026 says an appeal has to be submitted within
two months of the decision being appealed, but this DISCUSS just passed its
first birthday.