My main conclusion for the moment is that Last Call comments should indicate first of all a definite Support or Oppose for the decision at hand if they are to be counted for or against consensus. I'm not going to state a position, which means that you should not count me as either for or against the proposal. Keith On Sep 2, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > First, I'm in full agreement with Ross. > > Second, for the record and as a response to Keith, my read of the discussion on the last call was the biggest group of responses said that we should move forward with the draft. There were two smaller groups, those with a clear objection and those with roughly a "no-objection" or "it does not cause harm" opinion (and a group who seemed to discuss orthogonal issues and not respond to the question). I could of course have made mistakes in this determination, but I thought it was rough (perhaps very rough) consensus. > > Of course, it gets more interesting if you start thinking about the reasons why people wanted to move forward. Keith's latest e-mail has interesting theories about those. I don't think anyone thinks this is the priority #1 process fix for the IETF. For me, cleaning cruft from the IETF process RFCs is a big reason for supporting this work. And I must admit that we seem to be in a place where its very, very hard to make _any_ process RFC changes. Getting one done, even if its a small change would by itself be useful, IMO. Finally, I think two levels are enough. > > Jari > > On 03.09.2011 00:34, Keith Moore wrote: >> (iii) Any consensus that a 2 step process is better than a 3 step process. >> > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf