From: "Tony Hain" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Leslie Daigle" <email@example.com>, "'IAB'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: "IETF" <email@example.com> Subject: RE: IAB Response to Tony Hain's appeal of October 9, 2003 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:23:28 -0800
I appreciate the prompt response. A few points of clarification:
The contention was that there was no WG decision, because there was no consistent technical basis for the question. It is impossible to judge ‘correctness’ without some defining scope. When the responsible AD & Chair use clarifications of ‘somewhere to the left’ and ‘handwave’, it should be obvious that someone needs to go back and write a concrete definition for what is being discussed before any conclusions can be drawn.
I was only aware of one question from the IESG on 8/1, which I responded to that day. I have no idea why the IESG would claim they were unsuccessful in their attempt to seek clarification.
The IAB’s role here (and IESG for that matter) is to ensure that the leadership has not endorsed or participated in an edict of ‘the correct technical decision’ outside of the proper process. My understanding of the IESG response was that it didn’t matter how the WG got here, they were happy with the result.
If the IAB’s interpretation of the language and question scope (sec 4.6) had been the clear interpretation from the participants in the SF meeting & mail list, I would not have bothered with the appeal process. Given the context of the interpretation as specific to the prefix FEC0::, I consider the matter closed.