> Well just one person will not be able to create rough concensus, except > in a VERY small group. Saying that someone MUST be wanting to produce > an inferior document because they were paid to create a product based on > the spec is not fair to any participants. I claim that MANY, if not > MOST IETF participants are paid one way or another based on the > specifications that they are working on. are you really claiming that participants are paid differently based on whether their employers like the outcome of some IETF process? > If a document has technical problems for the minority of participants > (i.e. the non-rough concensus) this doesn't mean there are technical > problems... nor does rough consensus mean there are not technical problems. > I consider it part of my job to monitor the IETF and tell my employer > what I believe the decisions are going to be, what changes might be > coming, and how close to an RFC a given draft is. all fine, as long as when providing input to IETF you give your technical opinion as to what is best for the Internet as a whole, rather than what is best for your employer. Keith