I would go along with saying we have "rough consensus, with
strong minority dissention".
Carl, at the end of the debate, essentially a compromise
was reached (at your suggestion), that this would be
clearly indicated as we move forward to last call.
I oppose last calling our current documents. However,
we dont want to upset the process for no reason, so
we agreed to go along with last call as long as the
situation was correctly described as we move to last call.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rajesh Chawla [mailto:rajesh@trcs.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 8:22 PM
> To: ipp@pwg.org; Carl-Uno Manros
> Subject: Re: IPP> Consensus on sending our drafts to the IESG
>
>
> >I therefore believe that we have enough consensus to proceed with our
> >earlier plans to send the IPP Model & Semantics and the Protocol
> >Specification drafts to the IESG with the recommendation as Proposed
> >Standards, and our remaining three drafts as Informational RFCs.
> >
> >I wish to see your reconfirmation of this consensus
> expressed on the IPP
> DL.
>
> I support the decision of sending the IPP Model & Semantics
> and the Protocol
> Specification drafts to the IESG.
>
> Regards,
> Rajesh
> ======================================================
> Rajesh Chawla TR
> Computing
> Solutions
> (703) 787-2078 (Voice) 13622
> Flintwood Place
> (703) 904-9689 (Fax)
> Herndon VA 20171
>
>