At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:52:00 -0500,
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:29:46AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:21:36 +0100,
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On rereading my message, it probably came out stronger than I intended.
But according to my English-Russian dictionary the verb "would" can
convey "polite request", which was my intent.
Hmm... I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. My point is
that there shouldn't be any consensus calls by anyone on the
ietf-http-auth mailing list. It's not a WG.
Are you saying that a design team can't have "consensus" or "consensus
calls"? Surely they can, though consensus internal to design teams
cannot, and, indeed, must not be binding on any other aspect of IETF
Indeed. And so when the "document shepherd" implies that he or the
AD will be issuing consensus calls, I think that implies something
quite different from some internal design team consensus call.
So my question is: is the ietf-http-auth mailing list intended to act as
a forum for a design team working on draft-hartman-webauth-phishing?
Good question. Let's ask the author of the document, who is the only
person who can speak to the future direction of an individual
If the author feels differently, he is of course free to revise the
document, try to build consensus, and resubmit to the IESG at some
point in the future. Since it's an individual submission, no IETF
process is needed or appropriate for that.
I think that's exactly what's happening.
That's not what I see, unless Alexey suddenly became the author of
the document. Rather, I see someone claiming to be the document
shepherd acting under the direction of the AD talking about the
way forward. How is that the author revising the document, trying
to build consensus, etc.?
Ietf mailing list