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.


TLS mailing list

Reply via email to