Bernard Aboba wrote:
Alexey Melnikov said:
"This statement taken in isolation is certainly correct. However if the
original LC didn't ask the right question, don't you think this makes
The reviews are not meaningless.
I didn't say that reviews were meaningless. They were indeed quite useful.
But as far as I can see, there were 2 separate groups of issues with the
document: technical issues with document content and a question about
whether the document represents any form of consensus (and its intended
status). I was referring only to the second issue. The first group of
issues obviously needs to be addressed first.
They represent the feedback of the IETF
community. Rather than asking a different question in hope of getting a
different answer, it would be better to address the feedback in an
attempt to achieve consensus (or at least a lower level of disagreement).
I thought my original message was quite clear that further work on the
document is needed. I guess it wasn't clear enough.
I also think it is pointless to ask the question about status of the
document before technical issues are resolved.
IMHO, it also might be appropriate to find a better forum and process
for discussing and moving forward on this document. The topic is
important, and one that the IETF has an opportunity to make a contribution
to, over time. I think this may be a case where the existing BOF process
has limited our options. For an alternative, see:
I will study your draft, thank you for the pointer.
Ietf mailing list