I fully agree that a consensus call is an integral part of the IETF process.
But what we're seeing here is not one but a plurality of consensus calls. I would have expected the response to the IESG to be: yes, this was the consensus arrived in the WG at time X, here are further details, etc. What we're seeing is: oh, ok, let's do it all over again. ----- Original Message ---- > From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> > To: gabriel montenegro <g_e_montene...@yahoo.com>; "ipsec@ietf.org" > <ipsec@ietf.org> > Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 11:14:36 AM > Subject: Re: [IPsec] Traffic visibility - consensus call > > At 11:08 AM -0800 1/5/10, gabriel montenegro wrote: > >But I'd also like to question the process being followed. > > And I would like to answer. In short: the IESG is responsible for the output > of > the IETF. This is one such output. The IESG chartered the WG for a particular > item, and there is a question about whether what we produced matches that > charter, and if it doesn't, is it still OK. > > >We've discussed these points numerous times > >in f2f meetings, on the mailing list, at virtual interims, etc. So I'm > surprised to see the already > >established consensus being questioned all over again. > > The IESG was not part of those discussions; they are reviewing the work that > this WG sent to them. > > >But even if folks had not paid attention, that is no excuse for derailing > >the > process. > > A consensus call is not "derailing the process": it is just the opposite. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
