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
