Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
>> Right. So that's not what "consensus" means. Suggest you reread
>> RFC 7282. It's not normative, but I think it's helpful to reread
>> when you feel that you have failed to find consensus. It contains
>> some good advice about getting to consensus.
> Well let's see...
> "Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement..." check.
> There was disagreement with the proposals, and no better ones
> presented available.
> "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not
> necessarily accommodated..." check. I wasn't able to even address the
> concerns raised, because they were valid, and again there were no
> solid remedies proposed.
I concur with Murray: there were objections which remained open and
uncontested.
> On the other hand, I realize now that previous thread went on longer
> than I remembered, and there was a proposal that we (I, probably)
> construct an RFC3933-style process experiment and let that run for a
> while. If it works well, we can codify it by adding it to RFC7437bis.
> So I'll do that. If anyone wants to volunteer to collaborate on it,
> please contact me directly.
Yes, let's do that!
It would awesome if we could say definitely that the new rules
contribute to more volunteers before we actually use them.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature