Subject: Re: RFC 2418, RFC 2026 and the Tony Hain appeal (was: Consensus on Site-Local Addressing)

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:39:16 -0400 (EDT)

> I failed to find text that would define what could be appropriate matter
> for a consensus call and what could not.

there are no rules on that question - in my opinion, anything in front
of a WG is fair game for a consensus call

> For example, it is common practice to call for consensus on IDs or on
> what to do with an ID. In a meeting, it is common practice to call for
> consensus on a slide being presented on the screen or on an agenda item.

I've seen all of the above and think that is OK

the point I tried to make in my posting was that I think there 
needs to be consensus to change something that has already been
adopted (more so if it was adopted a while back), and that its not 
proper for a lack of consensus to keep as a consensus or mandate
to remove - i.e. there should be a barrier to capricious changes of
published IETF specifications

Scott

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:30:34 -0700

Scott,

> I would think that the issue is 'is there consensus to remove
> something that is currently in the spec'  - i.e., the removal
> of an established feature needs strong support, the default is
> to keep it.
> (note that the above observation is not a comment on the
> specific question, it is comment on proper process in the IETF)

As I was reading these documents again, it is not clear to me that they
cover the situation.

Trying to resume Tony's appeal in one sentence, I would say "The subject
of the so-called consensus was not clear, therefore the so-called
consensus shall be voided".

Does it appear to you that a clear definition of what is appropriate
matter for a consensus call could be an addition to a revised RFC 2418?

br,
Michel.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:43:37 -0400

>published IETF specifications

I completely agree.  The site-local prefix is document in a
RFC (the IPv6 addr arch, currently at PS), and it can only
be deprecated by an explicit consensus decision of the WG.

This is why we explicitly asked the group if we should deprecate
site-local addressing.

Margaret