I agree with most others on this list that the proposal now in Last Call
(with the agreed tweaks) is definitely good enough.
In addition to what has been said, in my understanding, IETF consensus
can change rules at any time and in any way. Of course, arbitrary or
capricious rule changes are a bad idea, but this case is far from
arbitrary or capricious, it's just one very reasonable way to deal with
the problem.
I hope that whoever is in charge of this discussion can soon declare
(rough) consensus on the issue that is being debated the most, so that
we can move forward. I wrote this mail only to help with this.
Regards, Martin.
On 10/04/2020 11:58, Loa Andersson wrote:
Abdussalam. Joel and IESG,
I have said this before, but not in relation to the Last-Call, I
strongly agree with Joel.
/Los
On 10/04/2020 10:22, Joel Halpern wrote:
Mostly just to help the IESG judge rough consensus, AB I strongly
disagree with your interpretation of the facts on the ground, and
therefore disagree with your interpretation of what "must" be done.
The proposed draft is acceptable within our processes, and seems to be
a sufficiently good answer to a problem we have to resolve, now.
Yours,
Joel
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
