Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"?

Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com> Tue, 03 November 2009 00:37 UTC

Return-Path: <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1793A6939 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:37:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QHfaACX6RJ27 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:37:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f193.google.com (mail-vw0-f193.google.com [209.85.212.193]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70BBE3A6937 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:37:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws31 with SMTP id 31so1601938vws.29 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:38:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=jcQd9JTvfMMLaPyGTJU1uGmrmnGm0uzbDHwNk5ywKWc=; b=HF6I3BmQC7no2368nuJ+i3ARS/2GJsE+faopbhC3C53G3Qkk/kNnhARF0wMm/0wXMf LnqKzbSNpgZbEVtRswvuvEkMqFmkqJIpQKT7J1SH281gYF54XWV3YWkuviTL6YcfNkJd XLDxF82HjfXjHP0fY+zOSGeYe+eealw4Im4fE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=AZnuPdLkTFrZLF+IJUbUo3WgkhXDKyzPVzJZy7/9McrSzN20PDbp4wmNc3kFgkcvH7 vtiMF8rqlhB6X9LQ16Two3xntKwubKivfuTnprdycAkhWJhvlCgW11aoUJO1fmzk2xAy ZpLlW+RepNMvqBnLcfRbfujaXn/vQ+p8P9XMk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.123.230 with SMTP id q38mr5997345vcr.13.1257208695820; Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:38:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910310127390.25616@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
References: <4AE7F0AE.1000102@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910280740540.25608@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4AE7FFC4.8050405@gmx.de> <4AE806AA.60901@ericsson.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910280938560.25608@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4AE86513.4060600@ericsson.com> <3a880e2c0910281301j5d1e4cdclfe2391b28eadda0e@mail.gmail.com> <4AE8CA69.2040105@webtide.com> <44abafb90910281604o2a73b490l6b1ae5ca1fba37ba@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910310127390.25616@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:38:15 -0800
Message-ID: <ca722a9e0911021638p6d7ce1e0r8e2983756234141f@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636c59a5fb910d404776cb541"
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"?
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:37:59 -0000

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

>
> I must admit to being more interested in technical soundness than
> consensus. However, if we are to base things on consensus, then we need an
> objective definition of consensus, so that it can be determined when we do
> or do not have consensus. Is there such a definition?
>
>
It's simpler for WG documents, where the WG chair is responsible for
determining WG consensus.  Unless it turns out that there's an opposite
consensus outside the WG, the WG consensus is generally not overturned by
individual feedback in Last Call when IETF consensus is confirmed.

For individual proposals, it's tougher to determine consensus but the AD
responsible for sponsoring the document is responsible for judging consensus
based on all the feedback she's aware of.

That's objective only in the sense that somebody is objectively defined to
make the subjective call, but that's the heart of the matter.

It helps our transparency to make consensus calls explicit, if there are
individual issues that can be teased out for such a call -- particularly if
people can vote not only for or against, but also for "dealbreaker" and "not
a dealbreaker".

Lisa