Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO

Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU> Mon, 05 November 2007 18:52 UTC

Return-path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ip73f-0004dG-Gf; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:52:23 -0500
Received: from tcpm by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ip73e-0004bE-4o for tcpm-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:52:22 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ip73d-0004b6-RX for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:52:21 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ip73c-0007Na-Ec for tcpm@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:52:21 -0500
Received: from hut.isi.edu (hut.isi.edu [128.9.168.160]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA5IntmC004819 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:49:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from faber@localhost) by hut.isi.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id lA5InnUA086058; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:49:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from faber)
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:49:49 -0800
From: Ted Faber <faber@ISI.EDU>
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC for UTO
Message-ID: <20071105184949.GA31862@hut.isi.edu>
References: <44C4AF94-CC5D-4702-914E-764583E2AADA@nokia.com> <78C9135A3D2ECE4B8162EBDCE82CAD77026345DE@nekter> <4717E7D6.7000407@isi.edu> <14C200C0-73DE-4550-A1E2-5B43BEE29BAF@nokia.com> <472756CC.8070809@isi.edu> <582A6F13-12CC-4B5C-8415-CBDAD73116AA@nokia.com> <4728A553.2020300@isi.edu> <6B3D5E1D-F2DA-428C-AAEF-6F548F48F4F5@nokia.com> <3DF7B46C-5246-470E-9C98-08A5AEADDAF3@nokia.com> <472F36FC.1030301@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <472F36FC.1030301@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
X-url: http://www.isi.edu/~faber
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: faber@hut.isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5
Cc: ext Alfred =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=CEnes?= <ah@tr-sys.de>, tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0788885988=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

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.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm