Hi Bruno, >> Wait, what?! There is no "we needed to advance this document" in the IETF >> or any other consensus based forum... > > By advance this document, I meant start the WG LC. Which is about collecting > comments on the document.
I think you are confused. This document has been in WG LC since December… I think many of us read "advance this document" as "declare consensus on WG LC". > The situation is that there was and is a single chair. I'm personally ok to > not proceed with any adoption call or last call while there is no other > co-chair. Note that my AD never asked for this. I'm glad you confirm that no consensus has been declared. That seems the appropriate state at the moment. >> Based on the discussions on the mailing list (including questions on why PSP >> is so important that we can't take it out for now which have never been >> clearly answered by the authors) I can't see you can possibly declare >> consensus. >> >> If there is going to be an appeal I will certainly put my signature on it. > > This is you right to appeal to the IESG. Now that we know that consensus hasn't been declared and the document is still in LC I think appealing would be premature :) > Note that appealing to the IESG is exactly what I'm proposing to do with > regards to the reading of RFC 8200. Getting that feedback would indeed be helpful. Cheers! Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
