Hi Joe, all,
Am 16.07.15 um 17:38 schrieb Joe Touch:
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.
That might be correct, but the IETF process has now way to balance
between groups with more or less cycles. However, giving more time, but
limited, will allow the WG to discuss both proposals. This isn't a
guarantee for anything, but at least there is more time.
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.
Please read my words carefully:
"The WG will ask the AD". This isn't an AD taking over and making a
ruling, but the WG is explicitly asking the AD to make a decision. I
will not decree any consensus. Just to make this statement clear.
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.
That is a fair point made.
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
