On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 09:50:20AM -0400, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> There's a few steps Paul is missing in his summary of the process.
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't really agree with that characterization.  To state my
> >>> understanding,
> >>> as responsible AD, of the status of this document: this document is in
> >>> the
> >>> RFC Editor's queue being processed.
> >>
> >>
> >> That was a process mistake.
> >>
> >> 1) ekr filed a DISCUSS
> >> 2) other people raised issues in response
> >> 3) ekr's DISCUSS was resolved but not the other people's concern
> The concerns were discussed at the meeting in London.  The chairs
> reviewed 3 separate issues.  The first was agreed upon that a simple
> wording change that was not significant to hold up for approval was
> made.  No change was needed with one of the other issues.  With the
> third, the room was in full agreement that this should be done in a
> separate draft.  I went to the mic and summarized this and asked for
> agreement that it was ok to approve the document as a result and there
> was no opposition, just agreement.

It's also worth noting that Ekr explicitly disavowed the other concerns
as outside the range of his DISCUSS
(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg25536.html), and
the entire IESG had plenty of opportunities to indicate support for
these other concerns as being DISCUSS-worthy, but none did so.

> It was right of the chairs to put this back out to the list for
> confirmation as they have the ability to pull a document back if they
> decide that is the right course of action.
> The AD can also override the chairs if they decide it should go
> forward and the AD does not agree (although I don't see that in his
> messages).

I'm waiting to see if anything else comes out of this thread.
In particular, I am hoping that some authors/proponents of leaving the
document in the RFC Editor queue would speak to the question of the
target scope, given the arguments that have been presented regarding
the risk/reward tradeoff of the current narrow scope.


TLS mailing list

Reply via email to