On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, RJ Atkinson wrote: > On Thursday, Jan 23, 2003, at 17:54 America/Montreal, Bob Braden wrote: > > I interpret "IETF consensus" as meaning that at least a Last > > Call was conducted. To use any other interpretation seems to me to > > be dishonest. I guess I am agreeing with Kireeti. > > [IAB hat off] > > I agree with the above. IESG approval is not identical to IETF > consensus. If it were, the IETF community would not be giving such > vocal feedback about concerns with the IESG at the last 2 meetings > and on the ietf-problems mailing list, IMHO. Can you give a pointer to this ietf-problems mailing list, please? L. > I don't see how I could support the IESG if such a decision were > appealed to the IAB and no *successful* (meaning no substantive > negative comments received) Last Call were held per the usual IETF > procedures. > > Ran Atkinson > rja@extremenetworks.com <http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@ee.surrey.ac.uk>