[rfc-i] verifying where we do/don't have consensus
hlflanagan at gmail.com
Thu May 31 09:07:28 PDT 2012
On 5/31/12 9:03 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 5/31/12 9:57 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> On 5/31/12 8:52 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> By "consensus", do you mean "unanimous agreement"? I see a number
>>> of issues on your list marked as "no consensus" where there was
>>> broad agreement with one or two people loudly and repeatedly
>> No, I don't mean unanimous agreement. But if there is something
>> marked "no consensus" and you (or anyone else) thinks that's not
>> correct, then please by all means correct me! It means I've missed
>> something on the list.
> I think it would be helpful -- although admittedly time-consuming -- to
> specify what the open issues are in the areas where we do not yet have
Hmm. Challenging and yes, likely useful. I'll work on it.
>>> You being clear what "consensus" means to you would be very helpful
>>> to us moving forwards.
>> Rough consensus, IETF-style.
> Pete Resnick and I really need to write that Internet-Draft we've been
> threatening to work on about the meaning of consensus. :)
I would totally buy you and Pete R. a beer (or a nice glass of scotch,
if you're so inclined) if you did!
More information about the rfc-interest