Eric Rescorla wrote:
Alexey wrote:
This message is trying to summarize recent discussions on
draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt.
Several people voiced their support for the document (on IETF mailing
list and in various other off-list discussions). Ekr doesn't think that
the document should be published in the current form and he has some
good technical points that need to be addressed. At least one more
revision is needed to addressed recent comments from Ekr and SecDir review.
It is quite clear that some people got confused about intended status of
this document and whether it represents IETF consensus. Sam has
clarified what was his intention, but another consensus call is needed
to make sure people agree with Sam.
Subsequent discussions and consensus calls on the document would happen
on <ietf-http-auth(_at_)osafoundation(_dot_)org>.
Alexey,
in my capacity of shepherd for draft-hartman-webauth-phishing
I object to this procedure.
This document has already had an IETF Last Call, where it failed to
achieve consensus.
Ekr, I have to disagree with you.
One objection about the document and one objection about the intended
status doesn't constitute "failed consensus", considering there are at
least 8 other people who are in favor of publishing the document. I can
publish the list of reviewers, if you insist.
At this point, it doesn't need additional last
calls to "make sure that people agree with Sam", but rather to go back
to the authors to try to build support in the community.
I was probably not clear enough in my previous message:
1). The document needs more work.
2). The document needs more reviews. Discussions of future revisions
should happen on ietf-http-auth(_at_)osafoundation(_dot_)org
3). The document was effectively reset to pre-IETF LC state.
Not liking the result of the previous Last Call is not a sufficient basis for
issuing another one.
This statement taken in isolation is certainly correct. However if the
original LC didn't ask the right question, don't you think this makes
answers meaningless?
At some point in the future, it may be appropriate to issue another
consensus call, but since this is not a WG mailing list--indeed, the
IESG has twice declined to charter a WG in this area--nor are you the
chair, it doesn't seem to me that you have standing to do that. When
that time comes, I would expect the IESG to designate an appropriate
time and place.
I have support of the shepherding AD.
Do you think this is insufficient?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf