Re: Saying no (was: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt> (Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 Network) to Informational RFC)

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

 




Hi Andrew

I think if the IETF has strong objections with engineering reasons, then it is already a NO. That document should not even get to IESG. We only need IESG decision (saying yes or no) when we all in IETF agree with consensus. All IETF WGs should adapt/amend their document to total IETF consensus (that is WGs interaction). 

AB

On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:34:22PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:
>
>    The sad truth is, the IESG no longer has the spare cycles to "Just
> say No."

I was on the receiving end of an IESG that simply stalled a document
until the WG changed its approach, because of IETF concerns, so I
disagree with that claim.  But if it is true, then we might as well
give up.  If there's weak IETF consensus (with some strong objections)
to a document that comes from a WG and has strong consensus inside the
WG, the _only_ people who can say no are the IESG; and they must.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]