In message
<8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CF72F(_at_)mbx-01(_dot_)win(_dot_)nominum(_dot_)com>,
T
ed Lemon writes:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 7:21 PM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
I agree that one-line statements are not of much use. It's more tedious =
to write a statement to support a proposal than an objection to it. Non-si=
lent Last Calls usually draw objections. It's going to be difficult to bal=
ance that if one-line statements of support (or objections) are not conside=
red in a determination of consensus.
Determining consensus in an IETF last call is a bit more complicated than t=
hat. It's not a working group last call. If someone objects to publicat=
ion during IETF last call, and their objection has already been discussed a=
nd addressed in the working group, the objection in IETF last call doesn't =
break that consensus.
Which breaks some of the reasons why we do IETF last calls. WGs do get too
focused on a problem and do fail to do a balance response to problems.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org