Siegel, Ellen wrote: > OK, now I'm confused. Can someone define IETF rough consensus? The errata had > a 2/3 majority after the last round of discussion... does the IETF ever get a > better > consensus than that?
There's a difference between "IETF rough consensus" versus "Working Group rough consensus". The vote we just took measures the latter. To evaluate IETF consensus requires an IETF-wide Last Call and an IESG assessment of the results. >> Based on Pasi's comments, I had thought we were going the RFC route. Well, he has a preference for /only/ going that route, but he can't actually veto our issuing the Errata under the Errata mechanism. Anyone can post anything they want under the Errata mechanism. Some pretty silly stuff has gotten posted, over the years. What Pasi /can/ do and has done is offer his assessment of the likely IESG decision about the /status/ that would be assigned to the Errata. In particular, he has a reading of the IESG rules for Errata which says that anything that is controversial cannot be "approved". Unfortunately, I think his interpretation of the relevant rule's text is reasonable, based on the latest explanation he provided. I think it's a bad rule and should be changed, but dealing with that is different from debating his interpretation. In other words, I think he's providing a reasonable interpretation of a bad rule and that, for now, we have to live with it. The alternative labels available to our Errata, if issued through the Errata mechanism, are "rejected" and "hold". In my view, "hold", with text in the Errata that states there is working group consensus, is sufficient. Not ideal, but sufficient. It provides an official publication channel sooner, rather than later. Given wg approval, we aren't likely to see the label "rejected" get assigned... > Given the likely time frame for an updated RFC (-bis or otherwise), I'd like > to make really > sure that's the only option. Letting the Errata go through as errata and then > following > up with the -bis seemed like the best option to me... something gets out > quickly, and > then the more complete update follows. +1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
