Harald, Tuesday, February 18, 2003, 7:30:51 AM, you wrote: HTA> Given that a large portion of the IETF does not in fact subscribe to the HTA> ietf-announce list, and that in some cases the IETF consensus is pretty HTA> obvious (for instance when the decision is just paperwork following up on HTA> another IETF consensus decision), I wouldn't even say that a Last Call is HTA> always required. That perspective on project management is very different from the one that I have been taught. As Elze notes, obvious to one viewer is obscure to another. Even when authority is essentially dictatorial and project goals and methods are crystal clear, it is essential to poll and review status and needs regularly. In fact it was Cerf who taught me that it is essential to check a situation repeatedly and in different ways, essentially treating such information as "statistical". It's not that people want to give bad information -- though of course some do -- it is that human communication is a hugely noisy process. The IETF has extremely diffuse authority, so we need to be extremely careful -- and non-parental -- in assessing and asserting our rough consensus. The idea what we can ever proceed without a Last Call strikes me as a fundamental anathema for the IETF. HTA> But it's certainly one tool, and a fairly powerful one, for getting HTA> objections out in public. indeed. d/ -- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>