Re: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-political-04.txt

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 9/17/19 8:38 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> I think we can reach rough consensus, even when we disagree, without
> watering the content down to pabulum.  It is harder and, at least to my
> mind, is part of the exercise we are engaged in. In a RG document, we
> should be able to discuss all relevant sides of the issue, especially if
> our purpose is to inform.

I suppose this is another opportunity to remind people to
distinguish between disagreements that they can live with and
disagreements they cannot.  Also, sometimes (often, actually, I
think) it's necessary to document points of view we disagree
with, and presenting those points of view is not the same as
arguing for them.  However, I think it's worth noting that if
this is published as an RFC it's likely to be widely misconstrued
as representing the IETF view and it's probably a good idea to be
sensitive to that.

Also, as noted elsewhere, IRTF documents do not need to represent
RG consensus but I think it's a good idea if there's at least RG
agreement that the contents are correct.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[e-mail]

Software longa, hardware brevis