On 19 August 2014 13:42, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben, > >> ... >> >>> It's rather unusual for an author of an RFC to publicly state that he >>> plans >>> to ignore the RFC if it doesn't match his implementation plans. >> >> As you are fond of pointing out, I am not the author, I am one of the >> editors. I am perhaps overly honest in stating up front that I will >> not unconditionally follow the consensus decisions of the WG, but >> surely this is far from being a unique stance. > > I don't recall making that observation about your role in generating > this doc. Can you point to a message from me that made that statement, > i.e., that you are an editor, not a doc author? I just don't recall.
I thought that was the gist of several of your comments wrt to consensus in the last WG meeting, but I could be misrepresenting you. If so, my apologies. > I agree that it is common to speak of doc editors, especially when the > content is derived from many sources, e.g., WG list discussions. In this > case, > the source for the initial doc material was very narrow, and I believe > Eran said that you are the one responsible for making edits to address > issues. > So, forgive my choice of words to describe your role. > > As for a public statement wrt ignoring WG consensus (in an implementation) > by a doc "editor" it strikes me as very unusual, if not unique, based on > my 28 years of IETF participation. But that's not what I'm saying - what I'm saying is I can't say in advance that this standard is one I want to implement, given that I don't know what it says yet. I think it would be pretty crazy to say otherwise. I am not saying this is a _likely_ outcome, just that its a possible one. It doesn't seem like a point worth dwelling on. _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
