Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600,
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
proposals. We were told we could *not* ask these questions, for fear
of upsetting Eric Rescorla.
Well, it's certainly true that the terms--agreed to by the IESG and
the IAB--on which the BOF were held were that there not be a beauty
contest at the BOF but that there first be a showing that there was
consensus to do work in this area at all. I'm certainly willing to cop
to being one of the people who argued for that, but I was far
from the only one. If you want to blame me for that, go ahead.
In any case, now that consensus to do *something* has been
established it is the appropriate time to have discussion on
the technology. I certainly never imagined that just because
there weren't hums taken in PHL that that meant no hums would
ever be taken.
It's been a month since PHL.
The IETF's supposed to be able to work on mailing lists between
meetings, including being able to work when no WG exists - which of
course means working on mailing lists that are not WG lists.
Agreed -- this also means that the 'technical approach' straw poll
that did not occur in the CANMOD BoF is not really that important,
since final consensus needs to be confirmed on a designated mailing list.
I congratulate the participants who worked on the charter on managing to
have the discussion and come to consensus on an approach. I think it's
up to Eric to demonstrate to the IESG that there's support in the
community for disagreeing with the consensus of the discussing participants.
+1
15 person (large!) design team. 1000s of emails. Done in a month.
This is more effort than most WGs can muster.
Harald
Andy
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf