On Consensus and Humming in the IETF¶
Resnick, P. (2014). On Consensus and Humming in the IETF. RFC 7282.
Cited by¶
5 citations across 5 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Mechanisms¶
- Protocol Standardization from Usage
- The result carries the standards body's stamp on rough consensus and running code — the running code came first.
This sourceExplains the IETF standards ethos of rough consensus and running code, favoring practical engineering evidence in consensus decisions.
- The result carries the standards body's stamp on rough consensus and running code — the running code came first.
- Rapid Reference Implementation
- It is decisive where advantage flows to technical adoption — the first usable, well-supported artifact tends to become the standard others must fit, in the spirit of "rough consensus and running code": a working implementation settles design debates that paper arguments prolong.
This sourceAssociates IETF consensus with running code and treats demonstrated engineering products as more persuasive than purely theoretical designs.
- It is decisive where advantage flows to technical adoption — the first usable, well-supported artifact tends to become the standard others must fit, in the spirit of "rough consensus and running code": a working implementation settles design debates that paper arguments prolong.
- Reference Implementation
- The IETF's ethos of "rough consensus and running code" captures why: a behaviour that no one has actually run is a behaviour no one has actually pinned down.
This sourceExplains that the IETF’s “rough consensus and running code” credo makes practical engineering experience trump untested designs.
- The IETF's ethos of "rough consensus and running code" captures why: a behaviour that no one has actually run is a behaviour no one has actually pinned down.
- Standards Committee Process
- Closure is not a headcount: the tradition is rough consensus — the chair judges that the working group has genuinely addressed the substantive objections and that the remaining dissent is not fatal, rather than counting a majority.
This sourceExplains IETF rough consensus as a chair’s reasoned determination that objections were fully considered and are not fatal, without deciding by vote or headcount.
- Closure is not a headcount: the tradition is rough consensus — the chair judges that the working group has genuinely addressed the substantive objections and that the remaining dissent is not fatal, rather than counting a majority.
- Technical Consensus Round
- This working group instead runs Technical Consensus Rounds under a "rough consensus" norm.
This sourceExplains rough consensus as addressing substantive technical objections without requiring unanimity or majority voting.
- This working group instead runs Technical Consensus Rounds under a "rough consensus" norm.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 5 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 3 other ways.
- https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC7282 ×2
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7282/ ×1
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7282 ×1
Registry ID ref:b54c12a515e0 · see in the full table