[rfc-i] I-D ACTION:draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-10.txt

Jari Arkko jari.arkko at piuha.net
Fri Oct 16 05:16:44 PDT 2009


Dave,

> An accounting assessment of community views, justifying claims of 
> rough consensus, is the usual approach towards resolving this kind of 
> disparity.

That sounds like a fine plan. We got most input during the third last 
call when I asked whether the notes should be optional or mandatory. My 
notes indicate maybe a dozen people on both sides of that particular 
question, and that's the basis of my claim that there are people on 
different sides of this argument. Since then we have had less people 
participating in the discussion.

How would you like us to progress on this then? Do you want me to do a 
recount :-) I could easily have been wrong. Or is this more about when 
we are polling people? But I fear that all except the die-hards have 
left the thread.

> relatively minimal voiced support for the IESG insistence

Or are you suggesting that we should exclude some people who stated an 
opinion, such as the ADs? But if we exclude IESG members and RFC Editor 
board members and those who hold some position in the RFC Editor 
function, its going to be a lonely discussion... :-D

Jari



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list