On 11/4/2013 8:18 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
It is clear that there is no consensus about exactly what to do and it doesn't seem likely that one will emerge.
FWIW, even though this was meant merely as part of some example text, I've heard similar assertions offlist and want to note that I believe this conclusion is premature.
There has been nothing even close to a serious attempt to pursue IETF rough consensus on specific text for this polichy.
Worse, the deadline of this week that Jari cited a) was not previously announced, and b) is entirely artificial. While pursuing this topic expeditiously seems reasonable, we've been given no basis for deciding that it had to be in place by this week.
I've no doubt that any proposed text will get some push-back and that some of that push-back will not converge towards acceptance by some folk raising concerns. We can't please everyone. But as Pete Resnick's continuing exercise on IETF consensus shows, we don't have to, although we do have to attend to their concerns.
The obligation here is to go through our established process and try to reach IETF rough consensus. I happen to think that the current topic is one we will, in fact, be able to reach a clear sense of community rough consensus, even in spite of what no doubt will be a portion of the community continuing to be unhappy. (People keep forgetting that 'rough' has two meanings and that both apply to the IETF... and that that's ok.)
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net