On 7/16/2015 3:33 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote: > Dear all, ... > Here are the two propposed ways forward: > > 1) As neither the protocol proposal I) nor II) is achieving rough > consensus, I propose to accept both as WG items and to let the WG work > on both proposals until the IETF-94 meeting in November 2015. The WG > will evaluate both proposals after this period and the chairs will last > call to see which protocol proposal will achieve rough consensus.
That will ensure the group with more cycles will succeed, which is not necessarily either the better solution nor will it generate consensus. > 2) The WG will ask the responsible AD to choose either I) or II) as WG > item. The responsible AD will pick and the WG will accept the choice. The IETF is based on rough consensus, and the ADs cannot simply decree that. If the community has no rough consensus, then that should be the result of the WG. My concern is that we haven't seemed to have consensus on the requirements., which is part of why we can't agree on a potential solution. And if there's no agreement, it's inappropriate to generate WG output that claims otherwise. Joe _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
