Subject: Re: Question about the edition of RFC 3280

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:52:46 +1200

Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]> writes:

>Peter Sylvester raised the following questions:
>
>- Whether this reflects a discussion in the working group for which consensus
>  had been achieved.

No, it reflects the fact that there is no consensus in the WG over how to
handle it, therefore the RFC doesn't try to make a statement one way or the
other.

>- how the consensus was achieved.

The consensus is achieved by noting that the RFC reflects the position that no
consensus has been (or is likely to ever be) achieved.

(Maybe Dan Streetmentioner needs to come up with a grammatical system for
 expressing the above).

Peter.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:12:06 -0700

SNIP

> >Peter Sylvester raised the following questions:

SNIP

> (Maybe Dan Streetmentioner needs to come up with a grammatical system for

How about something like:

This design constraint met a consensus for which there were a number of
different uses and operating models and as such, this effort did not define
a "single specific state" that  could be set as the "baseline" in this
technology's standard effort.

Todd