Re: No consensus on proposed change

Melinda,

I disagree with your abrupt ruling. This seems arbitrary and untimely. Why? For
the longest time, there is no discussion of substantive issue on the list. And,
now, when the discussion is ongoing and the list is busy - you make an abrupt
call to cut this off. Was this supposed to be a time-bound discussion with a
dead line? If so, I am not aware of such a dead-line. 

We may be closer to reaching a consensus than you think. I do believe,
intervention from other members on the list (other than the design team) is
helping. Certainly, more involvement from the list and substative reasoning is
the IETF way and should help close this. I woudl appreciate if you could give
this more time. Thanks.

regards,
suresh 

--- Melinda Shore <[email protected]> wrote:

> After a couple of weeks of discussion it's clear that there's no
> consensus to change the midcom semantics to provide additional
> parameters to PER and PRR.
> 
> I believe that this is the last outstanding issue, which means that
> the next version of the MIB draft will be the one that goes into
> working group last call.
> 
> Many thanks to all those who participated in the discussion.
> 
> Melinda
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
> 


=====