[rfc-i] verifying where we do/don't have consensus

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu May 31 09:03:45 PDT 2012

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
>> disagreeing.
> 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

>> 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. :)


Peter Saint-Andre

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list