RE: WG (rough) consensus) [was RE: WG document status]

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO" <gash@att.com>]

Thank you Bert:

Kireeti> WG Last Call for this draft is over.  And over.  And over.  It's
Kireeti> DONE.  Consensus was rather rough.  That's a pity -- it would be
Kireeti> nice to make everyone happy.

Jerry> Yes, last call was *declared* over.

Kireeti> That's what a chair is supposed to do.  Check with the ADs.

Bert> I support that a WG chair(s) has(ve) the responsibility to figure out what
Bert> the (rough, sometimes even very rough) consensus is. In fact, RFC2418,
Bert> sect 3.3 explains this.
Bert> It is great/best if he (they) declare(s) that on the mailing list, 
Bert> so that everybody can see (and hopefully understand) exactly what 
Bert> the WG chair will report to the AD (and thus IESG) as being the WG
Bert> (very rough or rough) consensus.
Bert> When/if the WG chair(s) DO make such a declaration, and a WG member feels
Bert> that this is NOT true, then you can raise that to the mailing list or
Bert> just to the WG chairs and copy ADs.

The point I tried to make was that several experts on SONET/SDH had many times commented on the gen-signaling draft (during the 2 or 3 last calls, over a period of many months) about the LSP encoding type re SONET/SDH.  The points made are closely related to the 'SONET/SDH labels' issue now being discussed.  Even today Zhi and Deborah elaborated on the relationship, but the issue raised is unanswered and unresolved.  Rather than *declaring* the issue resolved, it seems we could use the rough consensus reached on the SONET/SDH labels to also resolve the issue on LSP encoding type.

Thanks,
Jerry Ash