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. -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls