Consensus Call Tranche 4/5 (Settled Textual Issues and IANA Considerations

[Simon Josefsson]

"Mark Davis" <mark at macchiato.com> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
>> DUE DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2008 (ET)
>>
>
> NO

NO

>> COMMENTS:
>>
>
> In general, while good progress has been made the documents are nowhere near
> ready to release, even putting aside the problem with mixtures of normative
> and informative material in Rationale.
>
> Note: it is unclear to me what the "R.xx" references are. In general, the
> following points are quite hard to interpret, because it is very unclear
> what sections of text are being referred to. In many cases, I have no idea
> what the actual text is, even after spending a good deal of time looking at
> it, because there are many disconnected sections that it could be referring
> too.
>
> For that reason, I suspect that many of the votes (*both* YES and NO) are
> probably flawed in that it is unclear what people are voting for!

Thanks for saying this.  I tried to understand the 4/5 consensus call
better before answering, but it was too complicated to follow.  Instead
I read the documents to understand whether they are in better shape
today.  If the documents look OK, I'd say YES to everything that would
move them forward.  However, I do not see the documents specify a
technology that can be implemented reliably.  Given this, I'm saying NO
because the consensus call itself is flawed, and the documents needs
more work.

/Simon