Hi Alexey,
And if you would like to suggest a better process for moving things
forward, please share your opinion.
Suggest: Properly document comments and reviews somewhere. I've found
the current draft, and lots of arguments about change suggestions -
but there's no documented historical records of those suggestions.
Question: what's the best way to submit comments and reviews - can we
just re-write the entire draft, annotating our changes, and submit
that? Are professionals and experts even invited/allowed to comment?
Is there a formal procedure for dealing with suggestions (eg:
attributing, documenting, discussing, leading to an ultimate official
public inclusion (or exclusion with reasoning).
Kind Regards,
Chris Drake
Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 3:21:36 AM, Alexy wrote:
AM> Eric,
AM> Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:59:57 +0200,
Eliot Lear wrote:
Bernard,
I agree with EKR here. Failed consensus is failed consensus. RFC 2026
does not support the process that has been recommended here.
Perhaps Sam and Lisa can explain a bit more as to what process they
intend to use. It seems that Alexey is providing a forum for discussion
to improve the document, and I see nothing wrong with that. I would
imagine that both the IESG and the community will still get their say,
so what precisely is the problem?
This having been said, it seems to me that in order to address EKR's
(and perhaps others') concerns, the document will need substantial
work. I welcome efforts to improve that work. Where should that
happen? Must Sam do it alone?
Sam can of course consult anyone who he chooses for opinions,
reviews, etc. However, Alexey's original message indicated
something rather different. Namely:
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
AM> On rereading my message, it probably came out stronger than I intended.
AM> But according to my English-Russian dictionary the verb "would" can
AM> convey "polite request", which was my intent.
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.
AM> I think you are reading too much into my message.
AM> I didn't say that I will run any consensus calls, shepherding AD has the
AM> authority to do that.
AM> And you are correct of course that I don't have any authority in this
AM> case. I am just working for the shepherding AD, trying to help her in
AM> 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.
AM> Yes (the last sentence).
AM> It is not yet clear to me if you have any problems with the document
AM> being discussed on http-auth mailing list. If you have, can you explain
AM> why and maybe suggest a better place for discussions?
AM> And if you would like to suggest a better process for moving things
AM> forward, please share your opinion.
AM> Regards,
AM> Alexey
AM> _______________________________________________
AM> Ietf-http-auth mailing list
AM> Ietf-http-auth(_at_)osafoundation(_dot_)org
AM> http://lists.osafoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ietf-http-auth
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf