Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC

[Steven M. Bellovin]

In message <5E1AB742-3FEC-11D8-A1FF-000393CC2112 at acm.org>, avri at acm.org writes:
>
>On tisdag, jan 6, 2004, at 10:26 Asia/Seoul, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>>
>>> To the group: Apart from this one message from John, and a "ship it"  
>>> message from Brian, I have seen no further Last Call comments to the  
>>> IETF list or the IESG list. Is this in line with your perceptions, or  
>>> did my search of my mailboxes miss something?
>>
>> I submitted comments on November 20; they are in the list archives at
>>
>> http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- 
>> November/003225.html
>>
>> since these appear to have been ignored by the WG management, (i.e.  
>> the chairs declared "rough consensus" without even responding to these  
>> comments), I believe IESG should consider them as comments for its  
>> Last Call.
>
>
>While we did call rough consensus despite your comments, and those of  
>Todd Glassey and Alex Conta,  we did not ignore your comments and they  
>were included in the report on the rough consensus:
>
>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-December/ 
>003245.html

>to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,:
>
>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-December/ 
>003247.html
>
>The discussion went on for a little bit after that, without, as far as  
>I can tell, any support for your position.  I do, however, support your  
>forwarding of your unresolved comments to the IESG during the IETF last  
>call.


Right.  Note that 2418 explicitly notes that rough consensus is not the 
same as unanmity -- chairs are perfectly free to declare consensus even 
if there are some objections to a document.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb