On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:40 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
In addition to the other factors already mentioned, I didn't
see what I thought were significant new facts or issues being
raised at the IETF LC. I think that such things are perhaps
more likely to cause the IETF rough consensus to differ from
that in the WG. In this case, it looked to me like people
were bringing concerns already expressed in the WG to the
attention of the wider community, which is a reasonable thing
to do in cases like this where the WG consensus was already
fairly rough.
My (possibly-flawed) reading of the responses was that none of the people
objecting to the publication of this document during IETF LC were WG
participants. So, while they might have brought up points already considered by
the WG, they were not bringing up ones that they had already expressed.
Is it then your (individual) opinion that issues that were raised in a WG but
determined to not be strong enough to affect WG rough consensus should be
ignored when determining IETF rough consensus? That's a reasonable opinion, but
not one I had heard before. At least, it helps answer the question of what a WG
non-participant needs to do to cause a WG document to not pass IETF consensus.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf