Eric Rescorla wrote:
> At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600,
> Randy Presuhn wrote:
>
>> Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
>> choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
>> hums included getting a of sense of preferences among the various
>> proposals. We were told we could *not* ask these questions, for fear
>> of upsetting Eric Rescorla.
>>
>
> Well, it's certainly true that the terms--agreed to by the IESG and
> the IAB--on which the BOF were held were that there not be a beauty
> contest at the BOF but that there first be a showing that there was
> consensus to do work in this area at all. I'm certainly willing to cop
> to being one of the people who argued for that, but I was far
> from the only one. If you want to blame me for that, go ahead.
>
> In any case, now that consensus to do *something* has been
> established it is the appropriate time to have discussion on
> the technology. I certainly never imagined that just because
> there weren't hums taken in PHL that that meant no hums would
> ever be taken.
It's been a month since PHL.
The IETF's supposed to be able to work on mailing lists between
meetings, including being able to work when no WG exists - which of
course means working on mailing lists that are not WG lists.
I congratulate the participants who worked on the charter on managing to
have the discussion and come to consensus on an approach. I think it's
up to Eric to demonstrate to the IESG that there's support in the
community for disagreeing with the consensus of the discussing participants.
Harald
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf