Folks,In my opinion, SCVP draft -18 satisfies all requirements specified in RFC 3379. I also believe that this draft has rough consensus within the WG. We have endured a rather arduous process, beginning with a -00 draft in 1999 and a long requirements specification process in the middle of it all. More recently, we have worked through deadlines for comment submission and a very thorough review and editorial process to address those comments. While unanimous consensus has certainly *not* been achieved, messages I have received both on and off list indicate general satisfaction with this document.
Mike's message provided the motivation to "start the clock ticking" to progression out of the WG. SCVP has been in "Last Call" forever, so another two weeks of Last Call is not actually required. However, we should allow some time for those members who forgot we were in Last Call to weigh in. I believe one more week should be sufficient to review and comment.
So, unless the mail on the list clearly demonstrates that rough consensus has not been achieved, I intend to forward this document to the AD next Friday. Note that I will not consider the number of messages, their length, or the amount of venom when determining rough consensus, only the number of different submitters.
Tim Polk At 10:54 AM 2/25/2005 -0700, Michael Myers wrote:
All, I reaffirm my opinion that the WG has amply done its work on this important document. It would be good to see the clock start ticking on a two-week WG last call. The phrase "rough consensus" is by definition ambiguous. However, the distinction between "rough consensus" and "unanimous consent" is self-evident. Mike