Re: draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-02.txt

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

> Having said that, I'll leave it to the ADs to really answer your
> question :-)

it would be redundant - you already did

> Note that this is "rough consensus"; this is not a vote, nor is
> each response necessarily "yes" or "no".  Also, 3 "votes" for and
> none against might mean that we're wasting time on something of
> little interest.

a bit of expansion though - "rough consensus" does not mean 51% vs 49%
it means the WG (or at least the responders) generally agree - so the number
of responses is not an issue (unless its not many as Kireeti already pointedd
out) but the balance - 10 people saying "yes" and 8 saying "no" will not
cut it

Scott