On 4/28/2017 11:41 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Bit of a nit and possibly moot but... > > On 28/04/17 18:09, Joe Touch wrote: >> Ok. I really don't care if they allow this, but they need to allow this. > I think that puts far too much emphasis on WGs "owning" things.
The assignee of the port "owns" it, not the WG. For IESG-owned ports, specified by standards-track RFCs, the ownership is the IESG. > They don't. IMO IETF consensus wins (where it exists) over WGs > and IANA DEs and most or all other things in the IETF context. I don't understand "IETF consensus wins...over WGs". In this case, you'd need to clearly state that this doc updates the HTTP spec, indicate that it redefines the services on ports 80 and 443, and get IETF consensus to move forward. I agree - it's not genuflecting in front of the HTTP WG, but I wouldn't be surprised if cross-area review solicited their opinion. The key, however, is that this proposal is really redefining HTTP ports 80 and 443 (if that's the direction you go), and you need to get consensus on that. It's not enough to simply say "we want to do it and it works as currently specd". Joe _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
