> -----Original Message----- > From: 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson > Sent: Thursday, 25 August 2022 18:24 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; > 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [6lo] Moving forward: was Call for WG adoption of draft-li-6lo- > native-short-address-03 > > > Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > I’m not a 6lo chair, but I do not see a consensus to adopt as is. > > Thinking about what consensus is (RFC7282) and what adoption means, > RFC7221, I think that the question you need to answer is: > Do I/You have technical objections to this? > > Since you don't have to use/deploy this specification, does it cause harm to > the IETF, or IoT protocols? (Aside from the $50K of time that it costs to > publish) >
I do agree Michael here. If we start expressing opinions about whether or not there is consensus we will end up looking for consensus on whether there is consensus... a loop ;-) Ciao L. _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
