On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Richard Barnes wrote:
The question Ben was asking, though, is whether the impact of that process mistake is serious enough to merit pulling back the doc from the RFC editor.
That can only be answered after the consensus call. I don't think anyone is really objecting as long as the document isn't forwarded to publication without completing the current discussion.
Personally, I think the answer is no, and I'm not hearing clear consensus in either direction in this thread. So ISTM the best information the chairs and ADs have to go on is the hum taken in the room (which all of the litigants here participated in), which was pretty clearly in favor of proceeding.
Again, from a process point of view, we do work on the lists. Humms can be used to gage the room on what direction to suggest to the WG, but all those actions are confirmed on their respective lists. In this case, both Viktor and I believe the room was not sufficiently aware of the issues raised. And I believe it was a good call for the IESG to move this discussion back onto the list. It would be odd to then take that hum back into account again for the consensus call on the list. Paul _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls