Hi Dave, I agree that procedure of ietf processes should be respected and followed by all, and/or community should understand such difference in process before asked its opinion. I hope your comments will be considered by IETF and IAB in the future. thanking you for your comments, AB -------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker at bbiw.net> To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba at computer.org> Cc: IAB <iab at iab.org>, IETF <ietf at ietf.org> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:10 -0700 > Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls? > > When did the community approve that change in process? > > No he didn't: > > "Please send strong objections..." > > This asserts a forceful bias against general comments and criticisms by > establishing a very high threshhold for relevance. While no, no one is > prevented from other kinds of postings, the bias is nonetheless > established. > > Note that he didn't ask for support, although explicit support > statements are exactly what is required for IETF consensus calls, absent > > a history to justify the kind of "default yes" assumption made in the > announcement. We don't have any such documented history for this > effort. > Would any of us guess that the community would support the document? > Sure. But guessing isn't the point. > > > That folks have chosen to ignore the stricture specified in the > announcement and to post public support shows how deeply ingrained our > model is. And, yeah, enough such postings overwhelm problems with the > last call wording... > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net >