Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:32:12 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <42CA539C.4070603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > Also remember that "no consensus" in an issue like this, really needs to
| > mean "no authority" - if you cannot get at least most of the community to
| > agree with the IESG position, then the IESG cannot just claim the
| > authority and say "there is no consensus that we should not have it".
|
| I don't believe that is true in this case, as long as RFC 2780 is in force.
| Especially since there is a clear path for Larry Roberts to ask for
| IETF consensus, which by definition would overrule the IESG.
2780 has nothing to do with it. No-one is disputing what 2780 says.
The question is what the words in 2434 (to which 2780 refers) actually mean.
To me, and apparently to some others, it is clear that 2434 is all about
what amount of documentation is required to get IANA to register an option,
and who gets to judge that documentation. There's no suggestion in 2434
that anything else should be subject to scrutiny. Read the whole doc, not
just the two sentences that directly apply in isolation.
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf