>>>>> "Klaas" == Klaas Wierenga <[email protected]> writes:
Klaas> Hi all, There was a question raised as to what the WG-chairs
Klaas> policy for adoption as WG documents was, given that we
Klaas> accepted the use-cases and diameter draft without explicit
Klaas> consensus by the WG. So just to clarify, we have decided to
Klaas> assume consensus to accept as WG documents those documents
Klaas> that are both:
This certainly seems productive to me. It does mean that we'll have to
either have a call fairly early on in the lifecycle of a doc like the
usecases document to confirm there's a presumption of consensus or not
have that presumption.
The issue comes up if we cannot get consensus to change a document. If
there is a presumption of consensus, the fact that you cannot get
consensus to change means that you're left with the existing text. If
there is no such presumption--for example, when the WG adopts a document
unseen without discussion of the text either during the chartering
process or later--then you're stuck if you cannot get consensus either
to make the change or to agree to the existing text.
Note that what we're doing here is reasonably common in the security
area even if not so common say in the Internet or routing area.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
