> -----Original Message----- > From: Niels ten Oever <li...@digitaldissidents.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 10:52 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> > Cc: regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections > > On 11/6/18 1:00 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Are you saying that all people who are listed on RFCs that previously have > been adopted by WGs are actually editors, and not RFC authors? I think > this is not standing practice across the IETF.
Read that section of RFC 2418. Our chairs can answer any other questions you have about roles in this WG. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
