On 11/4/2013 8:18 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
It is clear that there is no
consensus about exactly what to do and it doesn't seem likely
that one will emerge.
FWIW, even though this was meant merely as part of some example text,
I've heard similar assertions offlist and want to note that I believe
this conclusion is premature.
There has been nothing even close to a serious attempt to pursue IETF
rough consensus on specific text for this polichy.
Worse, the deadline of this week that Jari cited a) was not previously
announced, and b) is entirely artificial. While pursuing this topic
expeditiously seems reasonable, we've been given no basis for deciding
that it had to be in place by this week.
I've no doubt that any proposed text will get some push-back and that
some of that push-back will not converge towards acceptance by some folk
raising concerns. We can't please everyone. But as Pete Resnick's
continuing exercise on IETF consensus shows, we don't have to, although
we do have to attend to their concerns.
The obligation here is to go through our established process and try to
reach IETF rough consensus. I happen to think that the current topic is
one we will, in fact, be able to reach a clear sense of community rough
consensus, even in spite of what no doubt will be a portion of the
community continuing to be unhappy. (People keep forgetting that
'rough' has two meanings and that both apply to the IETF... and that
that's ok.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net