John, On 2009-01-10 07:15, John Leslie wrote: ... >> In other words, remove the new requirement and we no longer have a >> crisis. We have an issue to pursue -- the same one that prompted >> the new requirement -- but no crisis. > > Alas, I must disagree. We have an IETF Consensus document (5378), > and that consensus must be overturned to get to where Dave claims > we are. In my experience, overturning consensus is hard. (That's > the _point_ of having a consensus process.) > > However wrong some of us (now) believe that consensus to be, we > should not expect to overturn it in 30 days -- whereas this quick > fix can be applied in 30 days. I strongly urge all of us to let > the quick fix go through without holding it hostage to overturning > the consensus of 5378.
I agree. I also agree with the Trust's claim that it has discretion to apply this fix *right now* by allowing documents to go out containing the disclaimer, without any need to seek IETF consensus for another change to BCP 78. I've proposed a specific change to BCP 78 that would (IMNSHO) act as a permanent fix, but we don't need that to go forward with normal business. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf