Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

SM <> Fri, 27 June 2008 01:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8523A6A80; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866923A67A8 for <>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ir-mhjFyGfSh for <>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFAD23A6A80 for <>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m5R1aB0i028833 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1214530579; x=1214616979; bh=L4j0CcUKMDi7+5RapFYp95w5tmYWdRkzHuRW 5JJu66I=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=PwsWg61lcOdyXFcgYwJ/CaD7Or1JcTYEqa X8p1fvpr0w1cDIf0jAn1xiC9TIU3NxNuwwwcGGgcC49ZnkyF53nfBS+Bo6UlgyFrusP g1V5i4VmgvF5jYdkkMiEjvtjvCSBvl99ojB/eJsbczO9vUDBpr9VGoyyEvMtCvyufYC NF8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail;; c=simple; q=dns; b=BUC2MtPW3/XvH3Jxi9XXbj5gJgF8y4aOgOzrCuR2Oo2TTnrIcxD54dVUhBbsrI67t giUuHJ0OndvSOkomh3oIn24KxQJFuwIHM2eIknhg+hAQThIwW9TeEEJGolZcPfFXHBb zfRhUecBBFVqNJPhajV6BYDsed18QQT50e77V3Q=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:35:12 -0700
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

At 04:43 26-06-2008, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>But, surely the WG consensus counts as part of the overall IETF 
>consensus process, doesn't it?  Please see the example in my 
>response to Jari.  The shepherding AD (or at least the document 
>shepherd) has an idea of the WG consensus as well as the IETF 
>consensus.  We cannot simply weigh the latest opinions more than all 
>the discussions that have happened as part of the WG consensus.

The document may be a product of WG consensus.  It still has to pass 
through the community and the IESG to be published as an IETF document.

The WG knows about the internals of the document and generally have a 
focused view.  The last call allows a wider range of input and to 
gauge the impact the proposal may have in other areas.  It is not 
about weighing the latest opinions more.  The author/shepard can 
always post an explanation.  The participants in the WG should be 
aware that there will be an IETF-wide last call.  You cannot blame 
the process if they choose to remain silent instead of taking part in 
the last call.  Note that letter-writing campaigns in a last call 
have been proven to be ineffective.


IETF mailing list