At 09:56 AM 4/22/2013, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "RJ" == RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > RJ> I oppose Eliot's proposed edits on grounds that they would > RJ> reduce the clarity of the specification and also would reduce > RJ> IETF and WG consensus about this specification. > >Ran, I just checked, and you don't seem to be a 6man chair. We >generally ask chairs, not involved participants to judge WG consensus >and ADs to judge IETF consensus. Bovine dung. Or more politely - nonsense. Participants judge WG consensus all the time. Occasionally WG chairs will "declare" consensus to more the process forward, but that's rarer than the normal group think. >So, I think what you're saying boils down to you disagree with Eliot >because you believe his comments would reduce clarity. You believe >others within the WG and outside the WG are likely to agree with you. >That's all fine and is valuable to contribute. > >However, I don't think it promotes open and honest technical discussion >when participants try to call consensus. >Thanks for considering my input. And I don't think it promotes open and honest technical discussion when you attack "standing" of a participant who *has* participated in the formation of a document to take an action, ask a question, or make a comment, rather than addressing the substance of the comment(s) made by that participant. It's unclear from what you wrote that you considered the substance of Ran's comment. What he wrote was: >It would reduce consensus within the WG and the IETF as a whole >to remove that text -- as it clarifies that other mechanisms for >generating such IDs are not affected by this specification. > >Text to this effect was specifically requested by various WG >participants, precisely because it is not "self-evident" and >instead was confusing. What *I* heard was: "Elliot, the section you want to remove was added specifically through working group discussion to gain consensus for the document". Assuming that I understood that was what he meant, and that it represents the reality of the process, Ran drawing the conclusion that removing that text would tend to "reduce consensus" seems to be a reasonable one and targeted specifically at the edit. Mike