On 6/26/2008 6:35 PM, SM wrote:
At 04:43 26-06-2008, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
But, surely the WG consensus counts as part of the overall IETF
consensus process, doesn't it? Please see the example in my response
to Jari. The shepherding AD (or at least the document shepherd) has
an idea of the WG consensus as well as the IETF consensus. We cannot
simply weigh the latest opinions more than all the discussions that
have happened as part of the WG consensus.
The document may be a product of WG consensus. It still has to pass
through the community and the IESG to be published as an IETF document.
The WG knows about the internals of the document and generally have a
focused view. The last call allows a wider range of input and to gauge
the impact the proposal may have in other areas. It is not about
weighing the latest opinions more. The author/shepard can always post
an explanation. The participants in the WG should be aware that there
will be an IETF-wide last call. You cannot blame the process if they
choose to remain silent instead of taking part in the last call. Note
that letter-writing campaigns in a last call have been proven to be
ineffective.
Is it really necessary for all the battles to repeat on the IETF list?
Why can't the shepherding AD judge the overall consensus?
thanks,
Lakshminath
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf