IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Last Call: <C> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Mon, 04 November 2013 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EAFB11E81FA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:52:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.334, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Blz20-MqMygm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:52:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og101.obsmtp.com (exprod6og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969B221E808A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob101.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUnfCq87zCCzhzTOakvEK7zvyJb0fBK3p@postini.com; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:52:11 PST
Received: from inner-relay-2.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.52]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id rA4FmRt2013641 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:48:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nahub01.corp.adobe.com (nahub01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.97]) by inner-relay-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id rA4FqAOU012268 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:52:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nahub01.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.97]) with mapi; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:52:10 -0800
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:52:08 -0800
Subject: RE: Last Call: <C> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <C> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: Ac7ZdQ2CHLI1nsX1RmWnD0sKUrSP3Q==
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D348260C1AE@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:52:25 -0000

Re draft-resnick-on-consensus-06:

my problem with this document is that it misses out on what I've always considered essential ... 

For me, "rough consensus" and "running code" should be taken together, not independently. I've always taken it as "rough consensus OF THOSE WITH running code".

I think we want to get the agreement of those who are going to implement and deploy systems which use the specification -- even if they're not in the room or not at the meeting or even not on the mailing list.  Those who attend the meetings and participate on the lists may act as representatives, or might just have opinions...

I don't think the draft helps clarify this point, at all, since it dwells at length on "consensus" and "rough consensus" in terms of numbers independent of the nature of the source.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email