On 08/09/15 18:03, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 9/8/2015 9:19 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> My overall conclusion is that the last call has established that >> there is rough consensus for this status change and I've put this >> on the IESG telechat for Sept 17th so the rest of the IESG can >> evaluate that. > ... >> Lastly, I do recognise that the consensus for at least the >> in-place part of the status change is rough, so I've called >> that out to the IESG via Robert's summary and Dave's response. [2] > > > > 1. Citing concerns is not the same as dealing with them. My note > pointed out basic problems with Robert's summary. I don't agree that your note pointed out basic problems with Robert's summary, nor that there remains anything you raised that needs to be dealt with still. I've gone back over the mails [1-5] you've sent to the IETF list in this last call. The relevant points (*) that I see that you made are: 1. the intention behind the status change wasn't sufficiently clear 2. the saag list is somehow not a proper venue for initial discussion of this because it doesn't have a formal way of judging rough consensus I think #1 was clearly discussed during the last call and is noted in Robert's summary as a result of which I attempted to reflect what I saw in the last call related to that in the status-change text edit. If my text changes in that respect can be improved, which is entirely possible, I'm fine with doing that. I don't think a claim that wasn't discussed is compelling at all. I think #2 is bogus. You asserted a number of times that somehow this depends on asserting that there was a formal consensus call. There was no such formal consensus call and no such assertion was made or depended upon. Feel free to point out where I'm wrong on that. (Perhaps you read between the lines when no subtlety was intended? That does happen.) What happened is that Kathleen and I both judged that there had been sufficient agreement on the saag list and in Prague to start an IETF last call. If you want to argue we're not supposed to do that, for an AD sponsored status change, go right ahead but please consider the level of additional pointless bureaucracy implied in your winning that argument. So, I'm sorry, but your #2 is I conclude a non-issue. Cheers, S. (*) I've omitted your discussion in the sub-thread with Stewart in the above. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94256.html [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94306.html [3] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94550.html [4] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94635.html [5] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg94671.html > It was meant as an > invitation to /repair/ it's deficiency's, rather than merely note that > someone had some concerns. > > 2. An essential contribution of RFC 7282 is to emphasize the importance > of attending to 'minority' concerns. On the current topic, they have > not been attended to, although the concerns expressed have been > fundamental to the role and handling of the document. > > 3. There is a continuing pattern of citing SAAG as if its discussions > equate to that of a working group, such as noting "rough consensus" > within that group. Advisory group discussions, such as by SAAG, can be > quite helpful. /But they are not chartered working groups, with > advertised agendas and deliverables./ As I noted, SAAG's composition > and conduct are fundamentally inappropriate to cite for a > standards-oriented decision. Worse, the citation of rough consensus on > SAAG has no obvious basis from the mailing list record. > > > d/ >