On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:But more seriously, what are you expecting Russ to do? What did you want him to write?
If your answer is "Nothing", then how do you read IETF consensus for a document that gets no response in its Last Call? The XSF's stance is often "It got nothing in Last Call, it shouldn't advance", which seems reasonable to me - I don't think defaulting to publication is right - certainly not in every case.
My suggestion was simply to ask for what you want in the Last Call.
I have a modest suggestion for you: read the rest of the message from Pete that you just replied to, in which he answers each of the questions you asked in your reply.
If he did, either I am sufficiently stupid I cannot make it out, or he did so sufficiently obliquely that I can't see - depending on where you want to place the blame. Either way, I've tried to parse out potential responses (again), and the closest I can come (again) is that Pete seems to want nothing from Russ in this instance, and indeed, in any instance from any person except objections. This is not clear to me, however, and therefore I'd appreciate some clarification, which is why I asked.
That in turn presumes we are defaulting to publication in all cases, and that in turn seems problematic to me, because his answers become, in order:
a) Russ, and by extension anyone who supports the document's publication for whatever reason, is expected to do nothing.
b) Russ, and by extension anyone who supports the document's publication for whatever reason, should write nothing.
c) IETF-wide consensus is not judged here. IETF-wide apathy is IETF-wide consensus.
My conclusion from that are:
1) Pete strongly supports publish-by-default.
2) Pete has his RFC 7000 sweepstake money on a much earlier date than I do.
Dave.