Once a document becomes a WG document the authors are required to incorporate WG consensus.
If this does not / is not happening, the chairs have the option / responsibility to replace the authors with ones that do... W On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > >> On Mar 9, 2017, at 18:54, tjw ietf <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We’re going to go ahead and adopt it for DNSOP, with the intention of >> resolving the concerns people expressed by keeping the status as >> informational (not standards track) and making sure the cautions and >> limitations the WG discussed on the use of RPZ are clear in the document. > > I don't understand how this works. > > The authors clearly stated the document will describe only what is currently > implemented and they were > not willing to make changes. How can this ever turn into a real WG document? > > Paul > > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
