Subject: [mpls] Moving forward with draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 17:40:29 -0000

Hi working group,

I have been watching the progress with draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6.

It came to me as a publication request after several WG last calls. Each one
seemed to close with a few issues that were addressed in a consensual way, but
shortly after there were more comments that needed work and resulted in a respin
and a further last call.

I had some comments during my AD review and returned the document to the WG to
have them fixed. A new revision addressed my comments and further late issues
that were raised in the WG.

The working group held a further last call to confirm the final version of the
document and that all seemed to be good. So the chairs re-issued the publication
request to me.

But now there have been further emails raising or re-raising issues.

Of course, we want to get the spec right. So all comments are welcome. But there
is a sense in which we must all work to reach consensus and agree on what to
publish. That work requires attention and responsiveness (it does not work to
drag out a conversation with long, long pauses between emails), and it does not
work to insist on one way of doing something being "somewhat better" than
another way if the selected way is not demonstrably harmful and has wide support
from the working group.

I asked the chairs to tell me whether they believe that there is WG consensus
around the current version of the document. They say that there is, but that
there remains a minority opinion that the document should use a different
approach. The document shepherd write-up reflects this by saying

        We have not been able to fully converge on the last comment, the
Shepherd
        and wg chairs are convinced that version -14 represent the working group
        consensus and think we should progress the document now.

I plan to start the IETF last call for this document. During that time it would
be helpful if those who support the document voiced their opinions preferably
with substantive comments (i.e., this is not a vote) and those who have issues
should also raise them. However, it is not constructive or helpful to simply
re-open old issues that have been closed with consensus on the mailing list. Nor
is it helpful to say the equivalent of "I don't like doing it this way." If you
have a concern with the current draft, please try to explain what is broken and
how that will damage interoperability or functionality in the Internet.

Please can everyone work hard to send any comments within the last call period
and using the correct email lists.

Thanks,
Adrian