On Apr 17, 2008, at 11:09 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
Oh, I saw that message. I just didn't see the consensus.
It wasn't a consensus, it was a unilateral statement based on the
fact that there wasn't a consensus.
Given that we're revising an ambiguous document, it was a conservative
decision, even if it was a unilateral statement and even if the
consensus on something new to recommend isn't clear.
I think it was totally the wrong action.
I also think arguing interminably, or otherwise failing to publish
2821 bis, would be the wrong action. There are few situations where
we just can't get consensus in a timely manner in the IETF and have to
do something else, and the right thing to do as that "something else"
is case-dependent.
My serious offer here is that if somebody sees a way towards consensus
on the implicit MX issue, please help find it or build it. The result
of that consensus may not go into this document, but I will help to
get the consensus documented and published.
Lisa