-------- Original Message --------
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 don't know where you get the idea that I've made such a leap. Each AD
is able to evaluate for him or herself whether there is consensus within
the IETF as a whole. The way this is normally done is to look at Last
Call responses (or the lack thereof), though an AD may also choose to
poll individuals or other working groups or mailing lists to see whether
such a consensus appears to exist.
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 certainly agree that early cross-area review is badly needed, though
I'm not convinced that limiting such review to a single or a few
hand-picked experts is sufficient.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf