Re: Qualifying for NomCom

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Thu, 07 April 2016 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C8812D56E for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3JiEsUy6cLnX for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D467112D564 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c4so110483412vkb.3 for <>; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=HC9bJ6IiE+YMmiKmHx+Z6lwfuFwKdc+gfck6ykzIsPs=; b=pHj4edrbYwN0K6KN88RpyB4P+Fv/fIG181Y2Nz0rXo/11e6W4shkVYS70T0Ap2Os/P nw+QHa0PNo3cwUNAWGqhvokV2T2zqP/6bFpxohA4FUTuEVjkYV7+M/ugys3spIZ2KcuD SKGbLvlvpRXIjNG/4Xb4oRFPeJR6hzu/r8HSRWZCHAIVMIRaf5ppqnutvUOu47DE290z u6RQmurCeXlNWnuCLhpyyiVDFDDt4IXbltdoIutrEcGOBMrRAwtjZ5uyexyg4oW4RJ7x bzBbiiUofgZHBbIvL2etuAjPVaHCHg9kkT74WKQO2eWmFZbY+Yqksl13XMS5fuGSuNSH c4qw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=HC9bJ6IiE+YMmiKmHx+Z6lwfuFwKdc+gfck6ykzIsPs=; b=FJX88cgXa/gcA49IavVm5STi5OeFuVR5ZVFJXFsc20QumopKYRlijT+6qRcMkweiMn i6DAny+4ziKIgFHefY2XJ/J7KByStLHQU4O2wRZkGjDxhVBrI/Bgin6t9gKl1TZS5h6z 1/IT9SbrMH8epdNHePjKew0yqRt38BnK+53vV9FniAOY9eYtt9PXJHCW0bkMdyNhniaZ FrcQaLMOuhiGCSRYg3eaD/wTH051FS5ciPuHF7JeiAyWPis6w6mG5hyb0JkWuenOMfqD GIVPydMx/2MCVNQtGkSqnf1IAUmpExGzNujsHyAtxj2++iltMknE44av7OI95ghuCC2l +q3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIloy3Ssq+IMD9dGOp0FwkQyzwnz09O41A9Ynrd9zLxiC790qA0Eko0fA2iNoljR61ZhAConKIszGmXJw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 51mr2102055uak.123.1460054117998; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:35:17 -0300
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113c86a80e67b2052fe9576c
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:35:20 -0000

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> Right.   So that's not what "consensus" means.   Suggest you reread RFC
> 7282.   It's not normative, but I think it's helpful to reread when you
> feel that you have failed to find consensus.   It contains some good advice
> about getting to consensus.

Well let's see...

"Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement..."  check.  There
was disagreement with the proposals, and no better ones presented available.

"Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not
necessarily accommodated..." check.  I wasn't able to even address the
concerns raised, because they were valid, and again there were no solid
remedies proposed.


On the other hand, I realize now that previous thread went on longer than I
remembered, and there was a proposal that we (I, probably) construct an
RFC3933-style process experiment and let that run for a while.  If it works
well, we can codify it by adding it to RFC7437bis.  So I'll do that.  If
anyone wants to volunteer to collaborate on it, please contact me directly.