Siegel, Ellen wrote:
OK, now I'm confused. Can someone define IETF rough consensus? The errata had
a 2/3 majority after the last round of discussion... does the IETF ever get a
better
consensus than that?
There's a difference between "IETF rough consensus" versus "Working Group rough
consensus". The vote we just took measures the latter.
To evaluate IETF consensus requires an IETF-wide Last Call and an IESG
assessment of the results.
Based on Pasi's comments, I had thought we were going the RFC route.
Well, he has a preference for /only/ going that route, but he can't actually
veto our issuing the Errata under the Errata mechanism. Anyone can post
anything they want under the Errata mechanism. Some pretty silly stuff has
gotten posted, over the years.
What Pasi /can/ do and has done is offer his assessment of the likely IESG
decision about the /status/ that would be assigned to the Errata.
In particular, he has a reading of the IESG rules for Errata which says that
anything that is controversial cannot be "approved".
Unfortunately, I think his interpretation of the relevant rule's text is
reasonable, based on the latest explanation he provided. I think it's a bad
rule and should be changed, but dealing with that is different from debating
his
interpretation. In other words, I think he's providing a reasonable
interpretation of a bad rule and that, for now, we have to live with it.
The alternative labels available to our Errata, if issued through the Errata
mechanism, are "rejected" and "hold". In my view, "hold", with text in the
Errata that states there is working group consensus, is sufficient. Not ideal,
but sufficient. It provides an official publication channel sooner, rather
than
later. Given wg approval, we aren't likely to see the label "rejected" get
assigned...
Given the likely time frame for an updated RFC (-bis or otherwise), I'd like
to make really
sure that's the only option. Letting the Errata go through as errata and then
following
up with the -bis seemed like the best option to me... something gets out
quickly, and
then the more complete update follows.
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html