Hi Andy,
On February 8, 2016 3:58:59 PM Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
Hi,
It should be up to the co-chairs to make consensus calls.
100% agree.
The IETF 94 minutes indicate that "solution 2" (RPC-based)
had consensus in the room.
I don't see a consensus call/decision in the minutes, nor one made on the list.
I suspect you (and others) might find rfc7282 a bit surprising, and
certainly worth the read if trying to understand the meaning of a hum and
census in the ietf context.
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/minutes?item=minutes-94-netmod.html
I have not seen any evidence that room consensus has changed on the mailing
list.
I take both Kent's mail and Benoit's earlier mail as pretty strong
indicators that we don't have a declared consensus of the Working Group.
In my earlier mail I was basically suggesting that rather than taking the
beauty contest approach, that we as a working group see if there is some
middle ground solution that combines the best of all options being
discussed. I did suggest looking at this as a modification of 3, but
perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be calling it 2.5 or perhaps
even 6 - -- as in the sum of all.
Lou
Andy
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote:
[retry]
Martin,
On 2/8/2016 3:42 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote:
>> Martin,
>> Thanks for the response. See below.
>>
>> On 2/8/2016 1:57 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>> But it's
>>>> also clear that some in the WG would prefer Option 2 (and most/all of
>>>> these are its coauthors.)
>>> This was the preferred solution of the room in Yokohama. 2 of the 4
>>> authors were present.
>> sure. And we know that the IETF consensus is not judged by who is in
>> the room. It is of course useful information to the WG and the chairs.
> You wrote "most/all of [those who prefer option 2] are its coauthors".
I was referring to the on-list discussion, but fair point. But keep in
mind that an in-person meeting isn't an authoritative source of WG
consensus from the IETF process standpoint.
> My observation was that just 2 of the coauthors were in the room, and
> still this was the preferred solution; thus I think that your
> statement that I quoted is incorrect.
>
okay, let me modify my comment:
OLD
and most/all of these are its coauthors
NEW
at very least its coauthors
Lou
> /martin
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
