Post #1249838
2026-04-05 20:56 UTC
@equinox Consensus is required, certainly, but it's also impressive to see this spec not even managing to achieve majority support. A year ago the "security area director" was putting up postings claiming support for this spec from (1) everybody but me, (2) the "vast majority", and (3) the "overwhelming majority". The chairs today aren't claiming consensus but still haven't admitted how much opposition there is; they're acting as if there were merely some editorial objections.
Replies (1)
-
@equinox@chaos.social 2026-04-05 21:03
@djb from what I've seen, it looks pretty bad, yeah. But at this point the question is whether you want agreement on that or just the document to not get an IETF "stamp of approval". Getting the latter is much easier, at the cost of the former. The IETF is really shit at doing "negatives", i.e. not accepting work. It's a general problem (I'm in the routing area). You can keep pushing to try to get one of those rare "no"s, but it's gonna be incredibly tedious. It's absolutely not worth it IMHO.