On 24/06/11 15:17, Paul Hoffman wrote: > 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. I had the opposite impression. I thought that I saw people say a few times, "when you brought this up in the WG" type remark as well (but I've not looked back). > 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. No. Not "ignored," but I do think that finding out new facts and cross-cutting considerations are an important part of IETF LC. (And recall that I started my mail by saying that I was just adding an additional point.) So I don't think I've answered your question, or at best, only partly. S. (And of course I'm not talking for the IESG here, just saying what I did/think - what hat is that anyway? :-) > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf