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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 02 September 2015 15:43 UTC

Subject: Re: Summary of LC comments (so far) on RFC1984 to BCP
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <55E705BA.7090300@nostrum.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <55E71902.9060407@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 08:42:58 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55E705BA.7090300@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2DXn9IdyN-CkmmUesHtzBRNFuCo>
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net

On 9/2/2015 7:20 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> A relatively high number of comments were sent in response
> to this last call.
> 
> Many participants expressed support for this status change,
> including people that were IAB or IESG members when RFC1984
> was published. The current IAB expressed support for the
> change.

While it's quite good that the summary goes into details about concerns
that were expressed, the summary misses an assessment of the number of
participants expressing objection to the status change and particularly
with the form of change being pursued.

Combined with the explicit statement that 'many' participants are in
support, this serves to imply that, as a group, those objecting were a
small enough percent to permit a claim of rough consensus in support.

I think that an objective assessment of the group expressing objection
will be a minority, compared against support, but will be quite a
substantial percent nonetheless.  On the average, the IETF usually
claims that the presence of a substantial constituency against a
proposal is enough to prevent a claim of rough consensus.

As an aside,

     I am not clear about the useful purpose of citing the positions of
those who authored RFC 1984, relative to the current discussion.  While
it no doubt adds some emotional force to justifying the path currently
being pursued, how is it that their views ought to carry more weight
than anyone else in the community?  To the extent that the original
authors of a document normally should have a say over changes in the
status of that document, RFC 1984 was the product of the IAB, rather
than an independent effort by those authors.  More generally, we
regularly revise documents and document status without consulting
original authors.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

Summary of LC comments (so far) on RFC1984 to BCP Robert Sparks
Re: Summary of LC comments (so far) on RFC1984 to… Stephen Farrell
Re: Summary of LC comments (so far) on RFC1984 to… John C Klensin
Re: Summary of LC comments (so far) on RFC1984 to… Dave Crocker
Re: Summary of LC comments (so far) on RFC1984 to… Stephen Farrell
Re: Summary of LC comments (so far) on RFC1984 to… Dave Crocker
Re: Summary of LC comments (so far) on RFC1984 to… Stephen Farrell