> On Nov 6, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Niels ten Oever <li...@digitaldissidents.org> > wrote: > > > > On 11/6/18 9:59 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >>> -----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. >> > > I thought that it is up to the WG chair to establish what does or does not > constitute consensus.
See Section 6.3 of RFC 2418. > Am also a bit confused about the interchangeable use of editor and author > here. James is the author, right? He is the author of the pre-WG version. He is the editor of the WG version that is the subject of WG discussion. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
