On 28-May-26 03:52, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 26 May 2026, at 17:20, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 3:17 PM Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27.05.2026 00:06, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Well, that's in fact the rationale for the whole RFC 9280 process.
However, my objection doesn't depend on it, but merely that the RFC
9280 process does not in fact demonstrate IETF consensus.
Since anyone can participate in this consensus that is a distinction
without a difference, especially when anyone can inform the IETF
participants.
I've already explained why I don't believe that this is the case.
Just in case it isn't crystal clear: EKR's point is that Russ and I
could declare that the RSWG (including everyone from the IETF) has rough
consensus to approve the document, but the IESG could simultaneously
decide that the IETF does not have consensus, and since there's only one
IETF stream rep on the RSOC, the document could be published without
IESG-approved IETF consensus.
I personally think that the RSWG chairs would be seriously stupid to
declare RSWG rough consensus if the IESG has already found a lack of
IETF consensus (independent of what the IETF stream rep on the RSOC
says), but at least in theory it can happen.
The problem could be addressed by asserting in the document itself that
each stream must affirmatively adopt the policy for it to apply to that
stream.
Yes, I like that idea.
I also doubt that the RSAB would approve this draft without getting assent
from their IETF member, who might well decide to seek IETF consensus,
but that's not for the RSWG to decide, is it?
Brian
pr
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
