On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:40 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > In addition to the other factors already mentioned, I didn't > see what I thought were significant new facts or issues being > raised at the IETF LC. I think that such things are perhaps > more likely to cause the IETF rough consensus to differ from > that in the WG. In this case, it looked to me like people > were bringing concerns already expressed in the WG to the > attention of the wider community, which is a reasonable thing > to do in cases like this where the WG consensus was already > fairly rough. My (possibly-flawed) reading of the responses was that none of the people objecting to the publication of this document during IETF LC were WG participants. So, while they might have brought up points already considered by the WG, they were not bringing up ones that they had already expressed. Is it then your (individual) opinion that issues that were raised in a WG but determined to not be strong enough to affect WG rough consensus should be ignored when determining IETF rough consensus? That's a reasonable opinion, but not one I had heard before. At least, it helps answer the question of what a WG non-participant needs to do to cause a WG document to not pass IETF consensus. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf