From: Robert Sayre [mailto:sayrer(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
A few interesting side cases on this. Some ADs (more than one
actually) recently suggested to a WG that something there
were doing
was likely to result in in a DISCUSS when it reached the
IESG. One of
the WG members appealed the IESG trying to manipulate WG consensus.
That's completely inaccurate. It was appealed because the
IESG engaged in the behavior I'll quote yet again:
I have noticed that often when the IESG card is played the party playing it is
not an AD and has absolutely no knowledge of what they speak.
In other words it's a bogus recourse to authority, "Unless you do everything my
way then you will get in trouble".
It is a particularly corrosive maneuver. The best way to counter it is for
someone in the group to make a direct enquiry to the AD responsible for the WG
whenever the card is played. It soon stops.
One other point in this debate that seems to have been lost. Somethimes it is
necessary to create a spec just to prove that the approach is fundamentally
broken and will fail in the real world. There are certain aspects of PKIX that
I think are woefully misguided but this does not mean that I would fillibuster
them or even sell product based on them if the market was to choose to adopt
them.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf