Re: Complaint to IAB regarding a declaration of consensus to adopt a non-hybrid draft

Dear Members of the IAB and Interested Participants of the IETF,

I would like to remind everyone that IETF is not run by a “majority,” and further, significant debate has resulted in rough consensus that a “majority" != “rough consensus.” [1]

And, again, another reminder that the same participants in said “majority” are currently heavily and seriously engaged in a discussion about how to “hum” online, so they may not be able to chime in properly at this point. I haven’t been a fan of hummed songs, but I will definitely buy tickets to see the IETF perform its hums, live! :-)

Best,
Andrew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 : "In particular, the IETF is supposed not to be run by a "majority rule" philosophy. “


> On Apr 26, 2026, at 3:15 AM, S Moonesamy <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Members of the Internet Architecture Board,
> 
>  1. The following comment is based on the figures [1] provided by the
>     appellant on the question of adoption of the document.  There was
>     a majority of working group participants in favour of adoption.
> 
>  2. One of the concerns raised by the appellant was about security.
>     It is up to the working group participants to include information
>     about security in a document [2].  I don't have an opinion on
>     whether the information was included in the document as I only
>     took a quick look at it.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 
> 1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Rfk6pDXrMTCOuMKaTmW2imy4OI4/
> 
> 2. Please see RFC 2418, Page 22, last paragraph.
>