On 3/10/17 5:07 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > 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...
If there's no consensus for advancing an altered or unaltered document then that's a problem; but not one that hasn't happened before. Consent is pert of concensus. > 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 > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
