I should be ashamed of myself -- letting myself get ensnared in a flamewar with Keith... First, let's restore some context. We're talking about http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html specifically section 3.1; and I was taking exception to the last bullet in 3.1: ] ] The IETF as a whole does not have consensus on the technical approach ] or document. Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [John Leslie wrote] >> It's high time we gave up any pretense that the "IETF-as-a-whole" >> should come to "consensus" about the technical details of RFCs before >> they're published. > > strongly disagree. I have seen way too many working groups working in > isolation, often deliberately so, and without due regard for the harm > that their work will cause. Keith states a problem -- which although many of us might state differently, most of us agree is a problem; and then makes a giant leap to the conclusion that our defense against this must be to depend upon some AD to call for IETF-as-a-whole consensus after the IETF Last-Call has failed to turn up any specific issues. I contend that Keith's cure looks worse than the disease. Very often, by the time we reach that stage, the WG has effectively disbanded, and if they haven't, this kind of open-ended, "Somebody somewhere might not like this" statement should push them over the edge. The proper cure for the disease Keith names has been agreed upon for years now: early cross-area expert review. Alas, we don't seem to be getting there. I continue to suggest that this last DISCUSS criteria is wrong. Instead we should have something like: " " The potential for harm has not been adequately considered. An expert " review by [fill in the blank] Area is needed. (which, BTW, I cannot find in the list in section 3.1). -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf