SM,
There is text that affects the secretarial role in section 6.1.
Should any of that be updated? In particular, given the discussion
of delegation in the reviews of this document, should delegation
be discussed more explicitly in this section? This would be a
good place to discuss whether it's appropriate for a chair to
delegate calling consensus to a secretary.
I did not find an answer to the last sentence. There is a comment
from Dave Crocker about "reasonable IETF process" [1]. As Robert
Sparks noted there have been two comments during the Last Call for
the draft (including his review)
The authors and shepherd are still working on synthesising the comments received
during last call and preparing their answers.
i don't believe this document is at the top of their list of priorities - it
will not lead to shipping code that resolves to revenue!
and I note that the conclusion of Last Call was "no consensus".
You may note what you like, but please don't try to call consensus on this
process.
I am the responsible AD for that stage of the process and I note that while the
last call period has expired, the discussion of the last call comments is still
slowly) on-going and making any attempt at a consensus call would be premature.
I would appreciate some input about the following questions:
(a) Is it appropriate for a WG Chair to delegate calling consensus
to a WG Secretary?
(b) Is it appropriate for a WG Chair to delegate calling consensus
to a shepherd?
(c) Is the determination of IETF Consensus based on public review?
I suppose you are hoping for this list to provide "some input". Fair enough, but
why don't you start the ball rolling by giving *your* opinions and the reasoning
you have used to reach your conclusions?
Cheers,
Adrian