On Thursday, January 04, 2007 03:12:07 PM +0100 Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't see where you get that from. I can think of two cases where we might get such an assertion from an AD: 1. The IETF Last Call did generate dissent.
I'd expect this to be the common case. That is, if an AD asserts there is lack of consensus, I would normally expect that to be because there is a demonstrated lack of rough consensus that has not been resolved.
2. The IETF Last Call generated indifference *and* the proposal, whatever it is, clearly has very wide impact. At that point it seems perfectly legitimate to question whether people really know what that have agreed to by their silence. Now, a better way to handle that is for the concerned AD to send explicit mail to the community during the last call - but if that hasn't happened, I don't see anything illegitimate in a DISCUSS asking for additional community review.
Neither do I, but I would not this to be described not as a lack of consensus, but as a case where broad _support_ seems necessary but is not present, or one in which the AD is concerned that the document has not received sufficient review in a particular area.
However, since the IETF works by consensus, I don't see how we can take an assertion of non-consensus off the list.
Agree. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf