Re: [Ietf-http-auth] Re: Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-

Eric Rescorla wrote:

> 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.
Eric:

It sounds to me as if you are attempting to claim that only official
IETF activities are permitted to ask the participants in a discussion
what they think.

Clearly it is not going to be possible for a subsequent revision of
this document to be re-submitted to the IESG if the contributors to
the document cannot achieve consensus among themselves.

> 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.
This is a document for which an Area Director (separate from the one
who happened to be the author of the document) wishes to forward
progress.  While this does not imply a formal basis for consideration,
it does provide incentive to put additional effort into revising it.

Alexey was asked by an AD to take responsibility for this document.
He is trying to fulfill that request.  There is no reason to put
hurdles in his path.

> As should be clear from my initial review, I don't think this document
> should move forward.
That is your opinion and you are welcome to hold it.

However, it is clear to me that this problem area cannot be addressed by
organizations such as W3C without the support and collaboration
of the IETF.

Jeffrey Altman

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf