[arin-ppml] Fwd: [OPSAWG] end of WGLC on transition space

[Benson Schliesser]

Sorry for the forwarded message, but I thought this might be of interest to PPML.

The IETF Ops Area Working Group has concluded that there is consensus around reserving an IPv4 /10 prefix for Shared Transition Space.  This specific message (below) is in reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03 which, in turn, points to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-01 as an applicability statement.

Cheers,
-Benson


> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob at harvard.edu>
> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 07:49:46 -0400 (EDT)
> To: <opsawg at ietf.org>
> Subject: [OPSAWG] end of WGLC on transition space
> 
> this concludes the opsawg WGLC on shared transition space
> 
> There were 45 messages from 22 people on the opsawg mailing list in
> response to the WGLC.  Assuming I counted correctly, four of the
> posters were opposed to the proposal, 17 in favor and one said he was
> not in favor or opposed.
> 
> Based on the mailing list discussion I would conclude that there is
> consensus in support of the proposal.
> 
> In addition the proposal was discussed during the opsawg session in
> Quebec City.  Seventy nine people signed opsawg blue sheets for that
> session and I expect that a number of people present for the
> discussion did not sign since the room was standing room only and the
> blue sheets did not get to everyone and a number of people left after
> the shared transition space discussion.
> 
> Most people in room raised a hand when asked if the supported goal of
> ID, I did not see any that disagreed but a few people spoke against
> the proposal so I may have missed a few hands.
> 
> 
> from RFC 2418
>   In the case where a consensus which has been reached during a face-
>   to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list the people who
>   were in the meeting and expressed agreement must be taken into
>   account.  If there were 100 people in a meeting and only a few people
>   on the mailing list disagree with the consensus of the meeting then
>   the consensus should be seen as being verified.  Note that enough
>   time should be given to the verification process for the mailing list
>   readers to understand and consider any objections that may be raised
>   on the list.  The normal two week last-call period should be
>   sufficient for this.
> 
> Thus, based on the combination of the very strong support shown in
> the face-to-face meeting and the strong support in response to the
> WGLC, I conclude that the WG has reached consensus in support of the
> proposal.
> 
> I will now forward a request to the ADs that the ID be published
> using the AD sponsored procedure.
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 
> ------ End of Forwarded Message