[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue



I believe that the best outcome for the IETF, and for its constituency,
including enterprise network operators, is for the IPv6 WG to get on with
what it's doing (documenting the deprecation of site-local, and developing
alternatives). I believe the worst outcome for the IETF would be to waste the 
time of busy people (and I'm sadly aware that this message will go to several
thousand people) over a consensus call that was not even about a document
but just a decision in principle. Personally I see no abuse of process in
either the face to face consensus call or the subsequent email poll; the
fact that the questions asked had some degree of ambiguity is simply a result
of the complexity involved. I recommend that the IAB deals with this appeal
as quickly as possible, and avoids future time wasting by constructing a
response that makes further appeals on the same topic pointless.

Personally, this is my last message on this thread and I won't be reading
it again either. I have work to do.

   Brian

Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > Or we all just got sick of the bickering and accepted defeat (unlike Tony).
> >
> > For the record, I can't support deprecating site locals until we have
> > something else approved to replace them -- at which point I say good
> > riddance.  There are several drafts in the WG to that end which haven't
> > gained any momentum thus far.
> 
> And this is why the appeal is in my opinion untimely.  The working group
> has not yet been given a chance to provide any documentation on that
> "What next?" question Tony asked.  For the IESG or the IAB to interfere
> at this stage would be micromanagement.
> 
> But here we are.  Tony has decided to push an appeal of a "vote", and
> not even one that generated a document.  That the appeal has even gotten
> this far seems is a flaw in the process.
> 
> Had the IESG been able to disallow the appeal, simply on this basis,
> then perhaps the working group could actually provide documents about
> which we could argue over technical merit.  As it stands, I predict yet
> another round of appeals once IETF last call closes, and the document is
> reviewed by the IESG.
> 
> Welcome to Court TV, IETF style.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <brc@zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------