I agree that no noise usually means agreement, but once a counterpoint has been raised I don't know how to tell which side the silent people are agreeing with. I'm not saying I see all angles to this but it seems like Robert really has some strong logic behind him - If assigning the registration doesn't give anything that could have been taken without it then all we are ensuring by giving the assignment is documentation on record, an easy way to ignore the implementation (by reference of the assigned number), and an avoidance of future conflicts with options we might find of much more import. I don't see the benefit of flying blind only because I don't know how that helps us achieve the goal of preventing this implementation. If that could be explained then I would change my tune. Best regards, Nick Staff -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Theodore Ts'o Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 7:52 AM To: Ken Carlberg Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: S stands for Steering [Re: Should the IESG rule or not?] On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:02:29AM -0400, Ken Carlberg wrote: > My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect. in > taking the position that respondents can be classified as either: > a) being satisfied with the IESG *decision*, b) dissatisfied or > uncomfortable with the decision, or c) could not be clearly determined > by the content of their response, I came up with the following list. You can add me into the "Satisified" column". Note that sampling messages posted to ietf@xxxxxxxx on this list will almost certainly be biased, since it is the people who are disasstified which are likely going to be the ones complaining aobut it. - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf