On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 7:59 AM Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 06:16:28AM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:04 PM Nico Williams <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > If the code points already exist then why can’t we just follow > Richard > > > Barnes’ proposal: > > > > > > Because there was a concensus call on adoption, and the WG chairs > called > > > the consensus as being in favor of adoption. There have been appeals, > > > and the appeals did not succeed (I'm not inviting a sub-thread about > > > that, just stating the current state of play). > > > > > > I argued against adoption. But given that it was adopted, publication > > > can't be held up by a desire for a different outcome to the adoption > > > call. > > > > As a matter of process, this is simply untrue. WGs need consensus for the > > document at the time of publication, notwithstanding the outcome of the > > adoption call. The chairs have some power to structure the argument > > to rule out repeated discussion of questions that have been asked and > > answered, but at the end of the day, documents need consensus to proceed. > > Fair. I assumed (and assume) that the chairs would not want to revisit > the previous consensus call unless something new comes up, so my take is > that if the WG chose to adopt the work, then barring new arguments and/ > or data the WGLC should not be held up by disagreements over adoption. > It's not a chair decision. If, for instance, there's not consensus to progress a document to the IESG, for whatever reason and whatever happened before, the document can't progress. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
