At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:59:57 +0200,
Eliot Lear wrote:
Bernard,
I agree with EKR here. Failed consensus is failed consensus. RFC 2026
does not support the process that has been recommended here.
Perhaps Sam and Lisa can explain a bit more as to what process they
intend to use. It seems that Alexey is providing a forum for discussion
to improve the document, and I see nothing wrong with that. I would
imagine that both the IESG and the community will still get their say,
so what precisely is the problem?
This having been said, it seems to me that in order to address EKR's
(and perhaps others') concerns, the document will need substantial
work. I welcome efforts to improve that work. Where should that
happen? Must Sam do it alone?
Sam can of course consult anyone who he chooses for opinions,
reviews, etc. However, Alexey's original message indicated
something rather different. Namely:
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
This document isn't a WG document and this mailing list is not a WG
list. It's inappropriate to hold any kind of "consensus calls".
Moreover, as there's no WG, Alexey isn't the chair and doesn't
have any authority to run a consensus or any other process.
This document was taken to the IESG and didn't achieve consensus
in LC. It now has the same status as any other random individual
ID, nothing more nothing less.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf