Hi Andrew I think if the IETF has strong objections with engineering reasons, then it is already a NO. That document should not even get to IESG. We only need IESG decision (saying yes or no) when we all in IETF agree with consensus. All IETF WGs should adapt/amend their document to total IETF consensus (that is WGs interaction).
AB On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:34:22PM -0400, John Leslie wrote: > > > > The sad truth is, the IESG no longer has the spare cycles to "Just > > say No." > > I was on the receiving end of an IESG that simply stalled a document > until the WG changed its approach, because of IETF concerns, so I > disagree with that claim. But if it is true, then we might as well > give up. If there's weak IETF consensus (with some strong objections) > to a document that comes from a WG and has strong consensus inside the > WG, the _only_ people who can say no are the IESG; and they must. > > Best regards, > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > [email protected] <javascript:;> > >
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
