>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Dave> 2. What are some examples of a demonstrated IETF-wide
Dave> consensus against work submitted to the IESG? What
Dave> improvements resulted?
I don't think there was an IETF consensus behind RFC 4285. I'm not
particularly sure there was a WG consensus behind the protocol,
although there was a WG consensus that we wanted it published. We
never evaluated whether I was right that there was an IETF consensus;
instead we improved the document by clearly explaining in an IESG note
what the open questions were and what the disagreement was between the
security area and the MIP6 working group.
I think the only time we've ever seriously taken steps on a discuss of
the form "there's no consensus here," is David's discuss on
draft-carpenter-rescind-3683. We haven't actually managed to improve
the document there, but failing to publish something with inadequate
community support is an improvement of itself.
There have been other discusses that were initially phrased as lack of
consensus discusses or that included such phrasing. However the IESG
has (typically before or during the telechat) come up with an
alternate way of looking at these discusses. As you point out lack of
consensus discusses are difficult to deal with and we'd rather have
easier (or no) blocking comments to deal with. So really the issue
has not come up often enough to have significant data.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf