On 08-12-11 22:12, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
In 2011-02, we have the case of "rough consensus with objections":
We have a number of people who spoke up in favour of the proposal, both during the discussion/review phases and during Last Call. A few persons had serious doubts about routing table growth and about PI in general, but still spoke in favour of the proposal, or abstained.
<all hats off, as usual> Gert, I fail to see how my comment from June 29th, quoted below, is part of your summary. Quote: While I do sympathise with the rationale behind the proposal, doing it this way strikes me as having an awful lot of (unintended?) side effects. I personally don't have a better suggestion to achieve resolution of the problem that this proposal aims to fix, but at the same time I'm unconvinced that everybody's who's been supporting the proposal has been doing so for the problem this policy aims to fix, and not one of its (again, unintended?) side effects. End quote. If we're going to have a meta-discussion about whether consensus has been reached, I think we should be clear on what the proposal intends to fix first. Agreeing with the rationale behind a proposal doesn't imply I agree with the text of the proposal as-is. Best, Remco This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.