On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > On 24/06/11 15:17, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:40 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >>> In addition to the other factors already mentioned, I didn't >>> see what I thought were significant new facts or issues being >>> raised at the IETF LC. I think that such things are perhaps >>> more likely to cause the IETF rough consensus to differ from >>> that in the WG. In this case, it looked to me like people >>> were bringing concerns already expressed in the WG to the >>> attention of the wider community, which is a reasonable thing >>> to do in cases like this where the WG consensus was already >>> fairly rough. >> >> My (possibly-flawed) reading of the responses was that none of the people >> objecting to the publication of this document during IETF LC were WG >> participants. > > I had the opposite impression. I thought that I saw people > say a few times, "when you brought this up in the WG" type > remark as well (but I've not looked back).
Looking over both WGLC and IETF LC responses just now and making a rough tally of opinions, I only saw one person who responded to both LC requests. (But I was only counting the objections to the proposed action.) >> So, while they might have brought up points already considered by the > WG, they were not bringing up ones that they had already expressed. >> >> Is it then your (individual) opinion that issues that were raised in a WG >> but determined to not be strong enough to affect WG rough consensus should >> be ignored when determining IETF rough consensus? That's a reasonable >> opinion, but not one I had heard before. At least, it helps answer the >> question of what a WG non-participant needs to do to cause a WG document to >> not pass IETF consensus. > > No. Not "ignored," but I do think that finding out new facts > and cross-cutting considerations are an important part of > IETF LC. (And recall that I started my mail by saying that > I was just adding an additional point.) I don't think that people's concerns can be disregarded just because others raised similar concerns in WG discussion. If anything, that should give more weight to those concerns. Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
