ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Summary of LC comments (so far) on RFC1984 to BCP

2015-09-08 12:04:36
On 9/8/2015 9:19 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
My overall conclusion is that the last call has established that
there is rough consensus for this status change and I've put this
on the IESG telechat for Sept 17th so the rest of the IESG can
evaluate that.
...
Lastly, I do recognise that the consensus for at least the
in-place part of the status change is rough, so I've called
that out to the IESG via Robert's summary and Dave's response. [2]



1.  Citing concerns is not the same as dealing with them.  My note
pointed out basic problems with Robert's summary.  It was meant as an
invitation to /repair/ it's deficiency's, rather than merely note that
someone had some concerns.

2. An essential contribution of RFC 7282 is to emphasize the importance
of attending to 'minority' concerns.  On the current topic, they have
not been attended to, although the concerns expressed have been
fundamental to the role and handling of the document.

3. There is a continuing pattern of citing SAAG as if its discussions
equate to that of a working group, such as noting "rough consensus"
within that group.  Advisory group discussions, such as by SAAG, can be
quite helpful.  /But they are not chartered working groups, with
advertised agendas and deliverables./  As I noted, SAAG's composition
and conduct are fundamentally inappropriate to cite for a
standards-oriented decision.  Worse, the citation of rough consensus on
SAAG has no obvious basis from the mailing list record.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net