On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:57 AM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote:
> My understanding of IETF consensus is that technical objections have been > addressed. I think this is critical to the difference between IETF > consensus and voting. It's not just 'most people think X'. I don't think > that the technical objections have been addressed. > "addressed" doesn't always mean "fixed". So long as the working group can claim that it made an informed decision (versus, say, not even acknowledging a raised issue), we can say it's been addressed. In this instance, it's pretty clear (to me, at least) that the working group did discuss this at length and appears to have reached rough consensus. Pete Resnick authored RFC 7282 which does a pretty thorough job of laying out the ethos. An important point is the distinction between unanimous assent (which, though nice to have when possible, is not required) and a broad "I can live with this". That said, I understand why we're where we are. +1. -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
