Joel, Thanks for this clarification on the process, I was on a plane :-)
On Nov 6, 2014, at 12:23 PM, joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote: > On 11/5/14 12:50 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: >> >> the lack of consensus means it can't be a proposed standard, not that it >> can't be an FYI, BCP or similar, right? > > BCP requires consensus after a fashion very similar to a standards track > document. > > something with no-consensus basis would probably go to the ISE. Some > that people do not oppose publication of even if they disagree with it > might be informational. > > but this is all jail-house lawyering, if the w.g. can't build a > consensus then it doesn't advance as a w.g. document. This is the important point. I tend to think we should have a topic/question/issue and a consensus to work on it before we get too concerned about a document status; it's an important detail, especially if we want a document status that requires IETF consensus for publication (standard or BCP), but finalizing it can be part of finalizing the document. In this particular discussion, I've heard multiple positions stated on the technical/operational issues and multiple opinions on where a consensus could be, if any. The extent and thoughtfulness of the discussion suggest there's indeed work to do for us here. Personally, I'd like to see us attempt to document the landscape, including consensus where we have it and description where we don't, but I understand the reason for skepticism. Suzanne _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
