> Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be > taking the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's > probably more appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion. > > Melinda > Yes. We have an RFC with a procedure. "I don't like the procedure, and will oppose it regardless" is not a tenable position. That's pretty much the kind of non pointed commenting that could easily be justified to ignore in assessing consensus. Would a WG chair be expected to take "I personally don't like @#$@ about this" as a serious objection in any other case? How about submitting something flawed to the RFC editor? Should the RFC editor stop demanding statements for IANA, IPR, and security because someone says "I don't support security sections, and I don't care?" Personally It would be great to hear people say "I don't think this case is exemplary to the RFC" if people could muster it. Otherwise you're simply faciliting the pointless DOS problems that this RFC was meant to eliminate. -Tom
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf