Subject: Call for consensus(minus): draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-05

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:00:54 +0100

Folks,

the latest draft - draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-05 - was published yesterday.

The editors believe that we now have text known to be acceptable to the 
IETF consensus on all issues raised except the issue of appeals, where we 
are still searching for a proper understanding and consensus.

I would like to verify this with the community, by asking the question "is 
this document OK" somewhat differently from before.

I *know* that there are always things that could be phrased better, 
safeguards that can be lowered or raised, concerns that could be addressed 
either in this document or in others.

But - in the interest of eventually stabilizing the document, I'll ask it 
this way:

Are there issues in the document now, apart from the "appeals" question, 
that cause you to believe that this document should not be approved as-is 
as "IETF consensus"?In other words: Are there show-stopper issues in -05?

I will ask the same question (separately) of the ISOC BoT, the IESG and the 
IAB.
If no show-stopper issues emerge, and we achieve a consensus on appeals, I 
will send out a (brief) request for minor issues you have identified such 
as spelling errors, get those incorporated in an -06, and ask for formal 
approval of that in all relevant bodies.

If show-stopper issues emerge, and it's clear to the IETF that they are 
show-stoppers..... the show stops. Of course.

                  Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:14:21 +0100

No show stoppers.

Personally, I also think the text in 3.5 and 3.6 provides enough
checks and balances to get IASA started, and we should defer the
review/appeal debate until later. I consider it more urgent to have
the BCP approved as a stake in the ground than to make it perfect.

    Brian

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> IETF consensus on all issues raised except the issue of appeals, where 
> we are still searching for a proper understanding and consensus.
> 
> I would like to verify this with the community, by asking the question 
> "is this document OK" somewhat differently from before.
> 
> safeguards that can be lowered or raised, concerns that could be 
> addressed either in this document or in others.
> 
> But - in the interest of eventually stabilizing the document, I'll ask 
> it this way:
> 
> that cause you to believe that this document should not be approved 
> as-is as "IETF consensus"?In other words: Are there show-stopper issues 
> in -05?
> 
> I will ask the same question (separately) of the ISOC BoT, the IESG and 
> the IAB.
> If no show-stopper issues emerge, and we achieve a consensus on appeals, 
> I will send out a (brief) request for minor issues you have identified 
> such as spelling errors, get those incorporated in an -06, and ask for 
> formal approval of that in all relevant bodies.
>