--On fredag, januar 24, 2003 18:15:57 +0000 Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
problem-statement@alvestrand.no - use the "-request" convention to subscribe.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?
This list was set up in conjunction with the IESG plenary in Atlanta, and has been used to continue the discussion from there. A working group charter is being discussed.
Harald
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> _______________________________________________ This message was passed through ietf_censored@carmen.ipv6.cselt.it, which is a sublist of ietf@ietf.org. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.