Re: rough consensus

> Perhaps, then, you would rather have no standard at all, than a
> standard that refers to PGP's CMR implementation?  
Or, perhaps, a standard that describes the "rough consensus"? Of
course, that would not keep PGP from documenting their CMR in an
informational RFC.

> To put it a bit more baldly, the question is are you willing to
> disrupt the process if you don't get things your way?
Is PGP if they don't get things their way?