On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:56:15AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:52:00 -0500,
Nicolas Williams wrote:
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.
I don't see the implication.
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
Actually, looking at the I-D's state and the IESG evaluation record I
see that it is not clear that the document either passed or failed IETF
LC, and that it might yet be approved.
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.?
Why on Earth couldn't Sam let Alexey run a design team to come up with
improvements that Sam could make to the I-D?
Of course, we've not heard from Sam on this (or if we have, I've missed
it -- I don't subscribe to the main ietf list).
Ietf mailing list