Hi Pete,
Thanks for your clarification, my comments below,
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:22 PM Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi AB,
On 10 Apr 2020, at 10:04, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> It is Not *right* to declare consensus or not until the end of the
> IETF LC.
It would not be OK for the AD to end discussion completely, but it is
perfectly OK for the AD to say, "I've heard the X Y and Z points on
issue A, and based on those, I think there is rough consensus. If there
are new arguments other than X Y and Z, we would like to hear them, but
until then, issue A is closed."
That is acceptable, and I think is very good for us to go forward. Don't you think that any participant should not push for that input by many posts of against? it is not fair for discussion progress, some people get tired by that, and I think I will as well. There are people that had discussed the issue from March and they think it is solved, but as IETF LC we need to give chance to others to input within this pandemic. Also saying : *there is no much time* or *there may be no consensus which is big problem* or *we need a conclusion by AD now*, IMHO makes discussion go in direction to force consensus with no freedom.
Finally, I think there may be many that may want to send their comments privately to IESG and I think it should be acceptable and must be counted and respected in such pushing-environment.
Best Regards
AB
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
