Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

Ted Faber wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 07:30:04AM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>> Lars Eggert wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> attached is a diff between -06 and my current working copy, to let the
>>> WG know about the changes I've made so far to address WG last call
>>> comments.
>>>
>>> There were some suggestions discussed in response to Joe's and Alfred's
>>> comments that I haven't made, because the rest of the WG was silent,
>>> which I interpreted as lack of consensus for the change. Speak up if you
>>> disagree with this resolution.
>> I have spoken before on this point in general. Apathy is not consensus.
>>
>> Apathy can be a reason to not include a change, but that's the reason.
>> Not consensus.
> 
> Apathy and consensus are not point states.
> 
> This document has a lengthy (perhaps too lengthy) history of largely
> supportive comment.  The IETF doesn't require people to re-defend
> consensus on each iteration.
> 
> I haven't gone back to re-read the exchanges on this particular aspect
> of the doc and I will.

I don't know if the points Lars is discussing above have been raised
before; he indicated only that there was no discussion by the WG. If
they have been raised before, I agree with your statement about not
re-defending consensus.

If these are new, however, I would hope we would have some discusion to
determine how to proceed. I'll wait for the summary of points though -
which could include that context (i.e., consensus'd before or not)...

Joe

Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

Attachment: signature.asc