On Saturday, September 08, 2007 01:53:36 PM -0700 Eric Rescorla
<ekr(_at_)networkresonance(_dot_)com> wrote:
Alexey wrote:
This message is trying to summarize recent discussions on
draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt.
Several people voiced their support for the document (on IETF mailing
list and in various other off-list discussions). Ekr doesn't think that
the document should be published in the current form and he has some
good technical points that need to be addressed. At least one more
revision is needed to addressed recent comments from Ekr and SecDir
review.
It is quite clear that some people got confused about intended status of
this document and whether it represents IETF consensus. Sam has
clarified what was his intention, but another consensus call is needed
to make sure people agree with Sam.
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
I object to this procedure.
shep>
This document has already had an IETF Last Call, where it failed to
achieve consensus. At this point, it doesn't need additional last
calls to "make sure that people agree with Sam", but rather to go back
to the authors to try to build support in the community. Not liking
the result of the previous Last Call is not a sufficient basis for
issuing another one.
At some point in the future, it may be appropriate to issue another
consensus call, but since this is not a WG mailing list--indeed, the
IESG has twice declined to charter a WG in this area--nor are you the
chair, it doesn't seem to me that you have standing to do that. When
that time comes, I would expect the IESG to designate an appropriate
time and place.
I think you're overreacting, possibly due to a misinterpretation of what
Alexey said and/or of the current state of the document.
My reading of the IESG evaluation record suggests that there are indeed
some issues that the community feels need to be addressed before the
document can move forward. Its current state is "IESG Evaluation::Revised
ID Needed", which, along with the evaluation record, suggests that the
responsible AD has asked the author and shepherd to get these issues
resolved and submit a new document. I don't know what will happen once
this is done, but unless the IESG feels we already have _rough_ consensus
to publish the document _and_ there are no major changes, I would expect to
see a new last call on the revised document. Of course, that last call may
see renewed objections from the same individuals, or from others; that does
not necessarily mean the last call "failed" -- remember, we operate on
_rough_ consensus.
Now, given that the responsible AD has asked for a new document, it seems
to me that Alexey, as the shepherd of an individual submission, has quite a
bit of latitude in how to get there and what it will take before he is
willing to take the document back to the IESG. Given that this document is
a group effort, it's entirely reasonable for Alexey to want to know that
people contributing to the work agree with any changes Sam makes, and to
issue consensus cals in an appropriate forum to do this. No one is
laboring under the impression that such a call would serve to "override"
the "failed" IETF LC. Instead, when Alexey in his role as shepherd
believes the document is ready to go back to the IESG, he will inform Lisa
of that fact, and the IESG will decide what to do next.
-- Jeff
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf