Subject: WG Consensus? (was RE: [Isms] achieving market saturation with ISMS (fwd))

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:15:18 -0500

Eric Fleishman writes...

> Other
> than discussions in the SNMP mail list over two years ago, I haven't
had
> any takers in this WG. Thus, from where I sit, the following ARE
> consensus ISMS requirements, listed in order of increasing importance:

I'm responding to what is written here, without the benefit of context,
so clarification is welcomed.  However, what I read is an assertion that
postings of requirements, which received no discussion on the WG mailing
list, constitute the WG consensus.  There are times when silence is
acquiescence, but more and more these days silence simply means
disengagement.  More often now, WG consensus needs to be ascertained by
active responses, rather than passive non-responses.  

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms