Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
Hello Alex,
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Ryuji Wakikawa a écrit :
Hi all,
Reminder, we currently solicit your opinion.
The deadline is Thursday. We only have few reply from WG.
Ryuji - how can you ask opinion on something you've already done?
This draft _is_ a WG item.
It's called draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model
I propose you first retire it.
There is no procedure for "retiring" a draft.
Yes, I believe so. I think we may need to propose one.
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.
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.
Maybe a new option at tools.ietf.org?
This seems like obstructionism to me.
No, not obstructionism - realism.
I can also call your action of submitting without WG approval as non-
legitimacy, but I won't go that far.
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.
I have never seen any other time where people submit WG items before
having consensus on the WG.
Have you seen?
Alex
Regards,
Charlie P.
