On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 2:28 PM Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26.05.2026 21:58, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > Second, I do not believe that the Editorial stream is an appropriate place > to set this kind of policy. Ignoring questions about stream specificity, I > think it's clear that there are substantive questions of policy here which > should be resolved by IETF Consensus (or whatever process is appropriate to > the Streams). > > The IESG can actually seek that consensus as part of the RSAB approval > process, but beyond that, > They can, but even if the IESG was persuaded that there was not consensus, that would not be sufficient to block it, because a single CONCERN is not sufficient to prevent approval.
> THIS procedure is entirely open to the rough consensus process. > It's open to *a* rough consensus process, but not to the IETF rough consensus process. > That's by design. Your design, I might add, as you not only were part > of the consensus that created 9280, you drove it. > Yes, and I think that it is a good process for the limited domain for which it was intended, but IMO this question is outside that domain. -Ekr
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
