[ietf-dkim] 1359: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday 11 October 2006 11:49, Michael Thomas wrote:

> It's probably worth mentioning that some people speaking in favor of
> something does not rough consensus make. I put these provisional
> requirement into the draft to try to distill out what was on the list to
> see if they would *then*
> achieve rough consensus. If it did not achieve rough consensus, I'd then
> remove
> it from the draft. From what I can tell -- and I'm not the chair here --
> at least as many people are against this requirement as are for it,
> which is not
> generally considered to be rough consensus in my understanding.

That's true, but that presumes there is a rough consensus for the base 
document that has never been established.  If opinion is split then there is 
neither consensus to add it nor consensus to take it out.  Since the point of 
departure has never been agreed, I don't think there is a basis for making a 
presumption that consensus is required to move in one direction more than the 
other.

Scott K