In message <dtg07h$ll3$1@serpens.de>, Michael van Elst writes,

>jonathan@Pescadero.dsg.stanford.edu (Jonathan Stone) writes:

[...]

>>And *that* is the reason for the prior consensus not to enable IPsec
>>in GENERIC kernels.  If you want to overturn that consensus, I think
>>you need to present rational arguments why the prior consensus was
>>wrong. I've looked, and I can't find any real attempt to do that.
>
>I have already overturned that *consensus* if there was ever one.
>Apparently I disagree, so at least now there can't be a *consensus*
>anymore.  So that makes it a majority but not a *consensus*.

No, Michael. You are very mistaken about what 'consensus' means.
In English the word "consensus" means something like "general
agreement" or "group decision" or "collective decision". It does _not_
necessarily mean a unanimous descison.  In other words, one dissenting
opinion does *not* overturn a conensus of the remainder of the group.

If you don't believe me, check Merriam-Webster Online or Oxford
(askoxford.com) or dictionary.com.

The *consensus* that was reached on this issue is that turning on
IPsec caues a bloody great huge hit in networking performance, and
that we cannot afford that hit. You can yell your disagreement with
that consensus all you wan't, but you arent' going to change or (in
your words) overturn the consensus until you change the minds of a
large majority of the group.


Meanwhile, what has happened instead is that we've attack the facts
which resulted in that prior consensus. By removing or attempting to
remove the signficant performance penalty imposed by IPsec, we remove
the technical justifaction behind that consensus.