Really OT... You are correct, But, it’s quite reasonable for a chair to check with the WG to see if folks think a doc is ready for WGLC. I’ve done that for 12+ years and it’s actually not unusual to get very valid concerns raised at this point in the process. It keeps docs from having to go through multiple WGLCs. I find that approach easier to deal with in the case that I’m the shepherd as often WGLC is a good time to start the write up and I find it very annoying and not a good use of my time.
Regards, Mary On Monday, July 23, 2018, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > As a point of order, I'm pretty sure the chairs don't need consensus to > move to WGLC, they can just do it. > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:53 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc. > ietf.org> wrote: > >> For context: this is draft-ietf-acme-star-03 as mentioned in the Subject >> but not the body. >> >> >> >> *From: *Rich Salz <[email protected]> >> *Date: *Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM >> *To: *"Salz, Rich" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject: *Re: [Acme] Consensus on WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-star-03 >> >> >> >> Please reply by Wednesday, a week. >> >> >> >> *From: *"Salz, Rich" <[email protected]> >> *Date: *Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 2:49 PM >> *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> *Subject: *[Acme] Consensus on WGLC for draft-ietf-acme-star-03 >> >> >> >> At London, the WG decided to have draft-ietf-acme-star to WGLC, but the >> chairs dropped the ball. >> >> >> >> Does anyone object to doing this? We would particularly like to also >> know if you have read the document. >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> _______________________________________________ >> Acme mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >> > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
