On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:52:36PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: > [...] The whole "community consensus" > thing is absolutely required for anything that deserves the word > "standard." [...] I would like to recall that new documents enter the "standards-track" as Proposed Standards and there are various ways to proceed from there (one of them is direct transition to Historic) and a long way to go for becoming Standard. So even if the IESG (a group of people we should trust - at least someone should be there you should trust ;-) made a bad decision and nobody recognized the IETF last call, then there are still several ways and mechanisms to fix the decision before something becomes a "standard". (And mind you: a standards-track document which is not deployed is just a sequence of bits in a storage device.) [I do understand what people are concerned about here but I also find it important to remind myself from time to time how we are all working towards raising the bar, and once raised, someone will speak up to raise it even further. Why are we not trusting the system that has worked remarkable well most of the time so far? Perhaps thats human nature - if I look what it takes to release a new Linux kernel these days or how difficult it is to make the next Debian release, I may conclude that raising the bar is a normal part of such societies.] /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf