Return-Path: X-Original-To: gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B8D128D2BF; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 04:45:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.189 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kTNLXd-1wL6A; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 04:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B573128D2B7; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 04:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dc3ec.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.195.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ZN4jS6SdCzDClL; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:45:32 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.400.131.1.6\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:45:19 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1212677.1742733409@dyas>

<1308918.1742898219@dyas> <1B003401-4E91-4087-BA13-3CBBE130C6AC@tzi.org> <1378215.1742979216@dyas> To: Barry Leiba X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.400.131.1.6) Message-ID-Hash: DLOQ2WKVBZR65IWVQG4CPMNXG5LF5LDG X-Message-ID-Hash: DLOQ2WKVBZR65IWVQG4CPMNXG5LF5LDG X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: procon@ietf.org, "gendispatch@ietf.org" X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BGendispatch=5D_Re=3A_=5Bprocon=5D_dispatching_draft-carpenter-r?= =?utf-8?q?fc7221bis?= List-Id: General Area Dispatch Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 26. Mar 2025, at 12:31, Barry Leiba wrote: >=20 > Indeed: this is why my method of adopting documents is to say > something like, "=46rom the discussion so far it looks like we have > consensus to use this document as a starting point for further > development. If anyone objects to adopting this as our starting > point, please say so, and explain why, by ." >=20 > There's no voting there, just a call for issues to be considered. > There are almost always none once we get to that point. I was going to write the same, but Barry beat me to it. (Usually, the =E2=80=9Cdiscussion so far=E2=80=9D would be specified a = bit more, including mailing list threads as well as one or two meetings = where the draft was discussed and the three questions =E2=80=9Cwho has = read=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cwho would provide reviews=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cwho = would implement=E2=80=9D were asked.) If the chairs cannot really judge the support from the group from a = document=E2=80=99s previous discussion, the document isn=E2=80=99t ready = for a WG adoption call. (And that, of course includes obtaining some judgement of interest among = implementers and deployers.) Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten