> > The minutes of the meeting will be posted soon. You can draw your own > > conclusion on the "rough consensus" then. > > You are referring to the "rough consensus" of those contributors who were > in a room in Salt Lake City.
Yes. > While interesting, the working group process > places the venue in which "rough consensus" authoritatively forms in the > working group itself. No, as I said, your objection is noted. > > ps: comparing criteria for wg i-ds and WG co-chairs proposed next step > > is apple and orange. > > The issue here is the openness of the process of the IDN WG. They are fundamentally different. One is a process which the group have agreed upon to narrow down our focus on I-Ds. The other is a process which the co-chairs do to make progress. Their is nothing "close" or "secretive" about it. All co-chairs statement are made public. > Please see rfc2026, section 6.5. > > Your failure to observe open review will result in a my making a second > assertion of process error. Anyone can make process error appeal, anytime, anywhere, whenever he/she feel it, with valid reasons or without. While I am not suggesting you to do so, this is not a basis of argument to prevent us from moving forward. Someone here once said "the fear of lawsuit should not prevent the business moving on". IDN is a sufficient important enough working group that we have enough members from IAB & IESG who is monitoring this group. If there is indeed any process error as you indicated, I am sure we will hear from them so fast before you need to say it. So, having said that, I do not see any technical value in this argument in IDN anymore nor is this in the core-interest of the group. I suggest you bring this thread offline or to another group (poised comes to mind) if you wish to continue this. It is disruptive to those who wish to make progress here. -James Seng
