Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2/2/15 12:40 AM, [e-mail] 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?

IETF last call.

> Cheers, Med
> 
> -----Message d'origine----- De : joel jaeggli
> [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé : samedi 31 janvier 2015 21:49 À :
> BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Gert Doering Cc :
> [e-mail]; V6 Ops
> List Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile
> last call
> 
> On 1/30/15 4:21 AM, [e-mail] 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:[e-mail]] Envoyé : vendredi 30 janvier 2015 11:39 À
>> : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN Cc : Gert Doering; Ole Troan; Fred
>> Baker (fred); 
>> [e-mail]; 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, 
>> [e-mail] 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
>> 
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAlTPhWIACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrJLVgCfRWvwc+ETB6IeRuc0RQQ/laiY
7n4AnjYJxcpLNWt1rd7MRfKjbvaoIw4q
=OT3i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----