[Enum] RE: statement by ENUM WG members in response to <lots of upper case letters>

["Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny at oefeg.at>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>Open discussion in a WG meeting and on
> the mailing list is generally a better approach when there is
> dispute about what the consensus actually is.

Agree

FYI:

See the meeting minutes from IETF 66 at
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/minutes/enum.txt 

Here are the relevant lines:

# Patrik - Some individuals violently disagree - can they go off to the
bar and report back to the working group? On the Mailing list, this
week.

The outcome of bar discussions was later posted as the "Dallas Treaty":
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum/current/msg04848.html

So it was disputed in a WG meeting and on the mailing list

The pointer to my arbitrary web page was just for convenience
to show the picture of the signatures.

Both "memos" where also sent over the ENUM mailing list

Richard


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc at zurich.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 11:12 AM
> To: Michael Haberler
> Cc: iab at ietf.org; iesg at ietf.org; enum at ietf.org; Lendl Otmar; Paul
Erkkila;
> Conroy Lawrence; Bernie Hoeneisen; Wilhelm Wimmreuter; Mayrhofer
> Alexander; Stastny Richard; Bartosiewicz Andrzej; Daley Jay; Reid Jim;
> Niall O'Reilly
> Subject: Re: statement by ENUM WG members in response to <lots of
upper
> case letters>
> 
> ,snip>
> 
> > To summarise the actual consensus, we refer to the "Dallas Treaty"
as
> > signed by Richard Shockey, Alexander Mayrhofer, Jason Livingood,
Penn
> > Pfautz, Lawrence Conroy, Michael Haberler, and Richard Stastny on 22
> March
> > 2006.  The text of the agreement is here:
> >
> >
http://voipandenum.blogspot.com/2006/03/dallas-treaty-on-infrastructure-
> enum.html
> 
> I would like to point out that signed documents posted to some
> arbitrary web site have no significance whatever with respect to
> the IETF process or to the question of what may or may not be
> the rough consensus of a WG or of the IETF as a whole.
> 
> This is entirely without comment on the technical merits of one
> approach or another, about which I have no opinion.
> 
> It's also the case that debate by competing memos has a very poor
> success rate in the IETF. Open discussion in a WG meeting and on
> the mailing list is generally a better approach when there is
> dispute about what the consensus actually is.
> 
>      Brian

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum