On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Richard Barnes wrote: > > The question Ben was asking, though, is whether the impact of that process >> mistake is serious enough to merit pulling back the doc from the RFC editor. >> > > That can only be answered after the consensus call. I don't think anyone > is really objecting as long as the document isn't forwarded to publication > without completing the current discussion. > > Personally, I think the answer is no, and I'm not hearing clear consensus >> in either direction in this thread. So ISTM the best information the >> chairs and ADs have to go on is the hum >> taken in the room (which all of the litigants here participated in), >> which was pretty clearly in favor of proceeding. >> > > Again, from a process point of view, we do work on the lists. It seems noteworthy, however, that nobody is chiming in on the list who was not also part of the discussion in the room. That seems to me to indicate that their views were already heard and taken into account in the in-person discussion. --Richard > Humms can > be used to gage the room on what direction to suggest to the WG, but > all those actions are confirmed on their respective lists. > > In this case, both Viktor and I believe the room was not sufficiently > aware of the issues raised. And I believe it was a good call for the > IESG to move this discussion back onto the list. It would be odd to > then take that hum back into account again for the consensus call on > the list. > > Paul >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
