Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress and draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model

["Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins at earthlink.net>]

Hello Alex,

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> > There is no procedure for "retiring" a draft.
>
> Yes, I believe so.  I think we may need to propose one.

That would be in a different group, concerned with
process details.

> Our Chairs and DT have brought us to a situation unseen before: ask 
> for consensus _after_ having supposed that consensus existed, and 
> _after_ having acted as if that consensus existed - they submitted and 
> approved submission of a WG item.

Or, more likely, they gauged consensus based on their
reading of the megabytes of discussion on the list.

> If we realize that was wrong, then we need a procedure to deal with 
> that.  Ideas feel free to  express how to deal with it.

My suggestion would be to ask your contacts on the IESG
about which working group would be appropriate for this
work.

> Maybe a new option at tools.ietf.org?
>
> > This seems like obstructionism to me.
>
> No, not obstructionism - realism.

I'm a realist.  I don't perceive your characterizations
as realistic.


> I can also call your action of submitting without WG approval as 
> non-legitimacy, but I won't go that far.

You can call my action anything you want, but I had
no role in the decision to accept that document as
a WG item.

> > The chairs thought there was enough consensus to adopt the
> > draft and get moving.  There were objections.  The chairs now,
> > it seems to me, are asking to verify whether there is enough
> > consensus to confirm the adoption of the draft.
> >
> > What's so hard about that?
>
> Charles - that is your interpretation.

To use your words, my description is realism.

> I have never seen any other time where people submit WG items before 
> having consensus on the WG.

You might want to check on that.

The process for adopting WG items has by no means
always been so nitpicky as you seem to suggest.

Regards,
Charlie P.