On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used
to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I
agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer.
I wasn't commenting on document editing. (It actually needs a serious
editing pass, but I understand that the current situation mitigates
against pursuing that.)
My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's
not being used. Something quite different is being used.
I'm not arguing against the document, but merely noting that an
implication of IETF community support is going to be present, but in the
absence of our having followed the process that makes that (formally)
correct.
Bureaucracy sucks. It's a hassle. It's always more appealing to just do
whatever we feel like that feels reasonable because we have good intent.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net