![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
-------- Original Message --------
I should be ashamed of myself -- letting myself get ensnared in a flamewar with Keith...
First, let's restore some context. We're talking about
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
specifically section 3.1; and I was taking exception to the last bullet
in 3.1:
] ] The IETF as a whole does not have consensus on the technical approach
] or document.
Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu> wrote:[John Leslie wrote]
strongly disagree. I have seen way too many working groups working in isolation, often deliberately so, and without due regard for the harm that their work will cause.It's high time we gave up any pretense that the "IETF-as-a-whole" should come to "consensus" about the technical details of RFCs before they're published.
Keith states a problem -- which although many of us might state differently, most of us agree is a problem; and then makes a giant leap to the conclusion that our defense against this must be to depend upon some AD to call for IETF-as-a-whole consensus after the IETF Last-Call has failed to turn up any specific issues.
The proper cure for the disease Keith names has been agreed upon for years now: early cross-area expert review. Alas, we don't seem to be getting there.
Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.