Subject: [OPSAWG] end of WGLC on transition space

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 07:49:46 -0400 (EDT)

this concludes the opsawg WGLC on shared transition space

There were 45 messages from 22 people on the opsawg mailing list in
response to the WGLC.  Assuming I counted correctly, four of the
posters were opposed to the proposal, 17 in favor and one said he was
not in favor or opposed. 

Based on the mailing list discussion I would conclude that there is
consensus in support of the proposal.  

In addition the proposal was discussed during the opsawg session in
Quebec City.  Seventy nine people signed opsawg blue sheets for that
session and I expect that a number of people present for the
discussion did not sign since the room was standing room only and the
blue sheets did not get to everyone and a number of people left after
the shared transition space discussion.

Most people in room raised a hand when asked if the supported goal of
ID, I did not see any that disagreed but a few people spoke against
the proposal so I may have missed a few hands.

from RFC 2418
   In the case where a consensus which has been reached during a face-
   to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list the people who
   were in the meeting and expressed agreement must be taken into
   account.  If there were 100 people in a meeting and only a few people 
   on the mailing list disagree with the consensus of the meeting then
   the consensus should be seen as being verified.  Note that enough
   time should be given to the verification process for the mailing list
   readers to understand and consider any objections that may be raised
   on the list.  The normal two week last-call period should be
   sufficient for this.

Thus, based on the combination of the very strong support shown in
the face-to-face meeting and the strong support in response to the
WGLC, I conclude that the WG has reached consensus in support of the
proposal.

I will now forward a request to the ADs that the ID be published
using the AD sponsored procedure.

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:17:04 +1200

Being one of the four opposed, I'd like to say that I think
Scott has correctly stated the (rough) consensus.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2011-08-17 23:49, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>