Thanks, all, for the clarification. I read too quickly and missed the semantic
distinction between "IETF consensus" was and "IETF working group consensus".
Ellen
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of SM
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:39 PM
To: DKIM Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Moving to consensus on draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-
errata
At 09:41 20-03-2009, 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?
The Standards Process requires that a proposed standard be reviewed
by the IETF community to establish whether it has the
consensus. This Working Group, for example, is only a subset of the
IETF community. The Working Group can be used to to determine
whether it is worth asking the IETF community to review a
proposal. However, it cannot act as a substitute for the IETF community.
There isn't a formal definition of "IETF rough consensus". From the Tao:
"a simple version is that it means that strongly held objections
must be debated
until most people are satisfied that these objections are wrong"
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html