At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:45:26 -0400,
Jeffrey Altman wrote:
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.
Not at all. There is a huge difference between "ask participants
in a discussion what they think" and a "consensus call".
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.
But this list is not the list of contributors to this document.
It's some other list, one with no formal standing for any sort
of "consensus call."
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.
Yes, and my point is that I don't believe that's an appropriate
procedure. Individual submissions are just that. Given that this one
has already failed to achieve consensus in a previous IETF LC, if the
AD wants to actively progress this document--as opposed to just
passively waiting for some forthcoming revision--then the appropriate
next step is a BOF followed by a WG.
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.
It may be clear to you, but it certainly hasn't been established
in any way I find convincing.
In any case, this isn't "the IETF". It's an individual
submission. "The IETF" would be a WG, IESG statement, etc.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf