On Thursday, January 04, 2007 03:12:07 PM +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
I don't see where you get that from. I can think of two cases where
we might get such an assertion from an AD:
1. The IETF Last Call did generate dissent.
I'd expect this to be the common case. That is, if an AD asserts there is
lack of consensus, I would normally expect that to be because there is a
demonstrated lack of rough consensus that has not been resolved.
2. The IETF Last Call generated indifference *and* the proposal,
whatever it is, clearly has very wide impact. At that point it
seems perfectly legitimate to question whether people really
know what that have agreed to by their silence. Now, a better way
to handle that is for the concerned AD to send explicit mail
to the community during the last call - but if that hasn't
happened, I don't see anything illegitimate in a DISCUSS asking
for additional community review.
Neither do I, but I would not this to be described not as a lack of
consensus, but as a case where broad _support_ seems necessary but is not
present, or one in which the AD is concerned that the document has not
received sufficient review in a particular area.
However, since the IETF works by consensus, I don't see how we can
take an assertion of non-consensus off the list.
Agree.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf