Re: "Discuss" criteria

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz at cmu.edu>]

On Thursday, January 04, 2007 03:12:07 PM +0100 Brian E Carpenter 
<brc at zurich.ibm.com> wrote:

> I don't see where you get that from. I can think of two cases where
> we might get such an assertion from an AD:
>
> 1. The IETF Last Call did generate dissent.

I'd expect this to be the common case.  That is, if an AD asserts there is 
lack of consensus, I would normally expect that to be because there is a 
demonstrated lack of rough consensus that has not been resolved.



> 2. The IETF Last Call generated indifference *and* the proposal,
> whatever it is, clearly has very wide impact. At that point it
> seems perfectly legitimate to question whether people really
> know what that have agreed to by their silence. Now, a better way
> to handle that is for the concerned AD to send explicit mail
> to the community during the last call - but if that hasn't
> happened, I don't see anything illegitimate in a DISCUSS asking
> for additional community review.

Neither do I, but I would not this to be described not as a lack of 
consensus, but as a case where broad _support_ seems necessary but is not 
present, or one in which the AD is concerned that the document has not 
received sufficient review in a particular area.


> However, since the IETF works by consensus, I don't see how we can
> take an assertion of non-consensus off the list.

Agree.

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