On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:29:46AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:21:36 +0100,
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
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.
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
processes.
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?
If so then I don't understand your objection. Let the design team do
what they will, and if and when they have something to show then we can
have another IETF LC (or BoF). Or are you saying that the IETF LC that
has already taken place failed in a permanent way, as opposed to finding
issues that need work but which do not prevent the document from being
brought forward again? I.e., did the IETF LC on this I-D really fail
with prejudice? And if so, who determined that?
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.
Speaking of consensus on a non-WG/IETF list != formal standing; I doubt
anyone here would argue that it does.
But this draft does have a formal _state_: "IESG Evaluation :: Revised
ID Needed."
What you say implies that design teams can't have consensus. Surely you
don't actually believe that.
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.
In its current form? Or in its approach to the problem? Is there a
process by which the IESG or IETF can actually reject an idea or
document _with prejudice_?
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.
I think that's exactly what's happening.
Nico
--
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf