Last Call Review of draft-resnick-on-consensus-05
review-resnick-on-consensus-05-secdir-lc-hutzelman-2013-10-31-00
Request | Review of | draft-resnick-on-consensus |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2013-11-04 | |
Requested | 2013-10-10 | |
Authors | Pete Resnick | |
I-D last updated | 2013-10-31 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by Russ Housley
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Russ Housley (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Jeffrey Hutzelman (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Jeffrey Hutzelman |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-resnick-on-consensus by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2013-10-31 |
review-resnick-on-consensus-05-secdir-lc-hutzelman-2013-10-31-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This is an Informational document which, to quote the abstract, examines "what rough consensus is, how we have gotten away from it, and the things we can do in order to really achieve rough consensus." It's an excellent treatment of that issue, and one I look forward to being able to cite as a reference when trying to explain to people what rough consensus is and what it is not. Like Pete, I've noticed a growing trend toward voting and things that smell like voting, with sometimes unfortunate results. Hopefully this will prove an effective tool in opposing that trend. Publish this, please. -- Jeff