Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Oct 7, 2013, at 3:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > So I'd like to dispute Ted's point that by publishing a version of
> > resnick-on-consensus as an RFC, we will engrave its contents in stone.
> > If that's the case, we have an even deeper problem than misunderstandings
> > of rough consensus.
>
> Right, I think what Ted is describing is a BCP, not an Informational RFC.
>
> To be clear here, I did not think Pete's document was going for BCP.  I
remain concerned that the publication of this document as an an
AD-sponsored Informational RFC will impute status to it as a community
conclusion, rather than the start of a conversation (or, rather, the
continuation of one).  Some of the comments of "I've wanted something like
this to hand to..." are part of what cause me to believe that.

And, to re-iterate, I do not think the document is ready, even if the IESG
believes that a document of this type should be published; it needs a much
clearer sense of audience as well as attention to the other points that
have been raised.

regards,

Ted