> -----Original Message----- > From: Niels ten Oever <li...@digitaldissidents.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 3:36 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; 'regext@ietf.org' > <regext@ietf.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections > > > > On 11/6/18 9:22 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 3:07 AM > >> To: regext@ietf.org > >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections > >> > >> On 11/06/2018 09:01 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > >>> Following up on the in-room discussion regarding Human Rights > >>> Protocol > >> Considerations as compared to Security Considerations and other types > >> of considerations that appear in IETF documents: > >>> > >>> I mentioned at the mic that we don't have any documents representing > >> IETF consensus that provide guidance for writing human rights > >> protocol considerations. It was mentioned that RFC 8280 describes such > guidelines. > >> True, it does, but it's an Informational document that "represents > >> the consensus of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research > >> Group of the Internet Research Task Force". RFCs 3552 (Security > >> Considerations) and > >> 8126 (IANA Considerations) are, in comparison, IETF BCPs. So, I'll > >> stand by my comment regarding the lack of _IETF_ consensus on the > topic. > >> > >> Thanks Scott, as you know there are also Privacy Considerations, as > >> outlined in RFC6973, which also do not constitute community consensus > >> but are widely used. > >> > >> Furthermore, if something is not a community consensus, it doesn't > >> mean we MAY/SHOULD/MUST NOT do it. > > > > True. It also does not mean that we MUST do it. As Jim Galvin noted, > it's up to the editor and WG to decide how to address the topic. > > > > My understanding is that at the point of WG adoption, change control is > handed over to the WG, right? So in that case it means that it is up to > the WG.
The editor controls the pen. It's the responsibility of the editor to ensure that the text that appears in the document ultimately represents WG consensus. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
