IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Mon, 07 October 2013 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 AF01021E80E8; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 nB7jx7WeYaj1; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C73221F856A; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id C6138C94BF; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 19:23:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 19:23:14 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt> (On Consensus and Humming in the IETF) to Informational RFC
Message-ID: <20131007232314.GC48229@verdi>
References: <20131007164829.16131.73595.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+9kkMB4VX7mABG=oZ16uNu3zOT-1-h0K5dEN68RW92X9ER59w@mail.gmail.com> <52530CCF.8090605@gmail.com> <F854C30D-78C6-4FCF-BC48-AB1E7C270164@nominum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <F854C30D-78C6-4FCF-BC48-AB1E7C270164@nominum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
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, 07 Oct 2013 23:23:33 -0000

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2013, at 3:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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.

   Oh my! I just saw the IESG agenda, and this _is_ proposed for BCP.

   I retract anything I said which might criticize Ted and/or Dave Crocker
for being too picky!

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email