Subject: Re: "IETF consensus" in IANA considerations [was Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational ]

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:13:42 -0600

Harald,

Tuesday, February 18, 2003, 7:30:51 AM, you wrote:

HTA> Given that a large portion of the IETF does not in fact subscribe to the
HTA> ietf-announce list, and that in some cases the IETF consensus is pretty
HTA> obvious (for instance when the decision is just paperwork following up on
HTA> another IETF consensus decision), I wouldn't even say that a Last Call is
HTA> always required.

That perspective on project management is very different from the one
that I have been taught. As Elze notes, obvious to one viewer is
obscure to another.

Even when authority is essentially dictatorial and project goals and
methods are crystal clear, it is essential to poll and review status
and needs regularly.  In fact it was Cerf who taught me that it is
essential to check a situation repeatedly and in different ways,
essentially treating such information as "statistical".  It's not that
people want to give bad information -- though of course some do -- it
is that human communication is a hugely noisy process.

The IETF has extremely diffuse authority, so we need to be extremely
careful -- and non-parental -- in assessing and asserting our rough
consensus.

The idea what we can ever proceed without a Last Call strikes me as a
fundamental anathema for the IETF.

HTA> But it's certainly one tool, and a fairly powerful one, for getting
HTA> objections out in public.

indeed.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:29:27 -0500

> fundamental anathema for the IETF.

agree entirely

Keith