On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 24/06/11 15:17, Paul Hoffman wrote:
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.
I had the opposite impression. I thought that I saw people
say a few times, "when you brought this up in the WG" type
remark as well (but I've not looked back).
Looking over both WGLC and IETF LC responses just now and making a rough tally
of opinions, I only saw one person who responded to both LC requests. (But I
was only counting the objections to the proposed action.)
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.
No. Not "ignored," but I do think that finding out new facts
and cross-cutting considerations are an important part of
IETF LC. (And recall that I started my mail by saying that
I was just adding an additional point.)
I don't think that people's concerns can be disregarded just because others
raised similar concerns in WG discussion. If anything, that should give more
weight to those concerns.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf