Richard, > On 27 November, I requested that the co-chairs provide a justification for > the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved, see: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01402.html > > The requested justification has not yet been provided. Calling the consensus is a judgment call. For what it is worth, I have been quite satisfied with the chairs and the document shepherd reading the opinions of the group. Their thoughts have been discussed in the thread “draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step”, see the thread beginning at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01401.html See in particular this e-mail: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01406.html as well as the shepherd writeup: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/shepherdwriteup/ Also, for information, the IESG has not yet considered this draft. But they will. Right now it's in IETF last call, the outcome of which will first be evaluated by the responsible AD, in this case me. And then by the IESG as a whole. At that point the IESG will determine if there have been any process or other issues that need consideration or action. Jari
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail