At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:21:36 +0100,
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
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
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.
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.
I think you are reading too much into my message.
I didn't say that I will run any consensus calls, shepherding AD has the
authority to do that.
And you are correct of course that I don't have any authority in this
case. I am just working for the shepherding AD, trying to help her in
getting the document through IESG.
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.
Yes (the last sentence).
It is not yet clear to me if you have any problems with the document
being discussed on http-auth mailing list. If you have, can you explain
why and maybe suggest a better place for discussions?
And if you would like to suggest a better process for moving things
forward, please share your opinion.
I have no problem with Sam soliciting opinions in his document on any
forum of his choice. What I object to is the notion--again implied in
your above comments--that this document has some formal standing. As
I said initially, this is an individual submission that failed to
obtain consensus. As such it doesn't need shepherding or shepherding
ADs, any more than any other individual ID.
And if you would like to suggest a better process for moving things
forward, please share your opinion.
As should be clear from my initial review, I don't think this document
should move forward.
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.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf