There's a few steps Paul is missing in his summary of the process. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >> >>> I don't really agree with that characterization. To state my >>> understanding, >>> as responsible AD, of the status of this document: this document is in >>> the >>> RFC Editor's queue being processed. >> >> >> That was a process mistake. >> >> 1) ekr filed a DISCUSS >> 2) other people raised issues in response >> 3) ekr's DISCUSS was resolved but not the other people's concern
The concerns were discussed at the meeting in London. The chairs reviewed 3 separate issues. The first was agreed upon that a simple wording change that was not significant to hold up for approval was made. No change was needed with one of the other issues. With the third, the room was in full agreement that this should be done in a separate draft. I went to the mic and summarized this and asked for agreement that it was ok to approve the document as a result and there was no opposition, just agreement. It was right of the chairs to put this back out to the list for confirmation as they have the ability to pull a document back if they decide that is the right course of action. The AD can also override the chairs if they decide it should go forward and the AD does not agree (although I don't see that in his messages). Best regards, Kathleen >> 4) document was placed in RFC Editor queue despite this >> 5) TLS consensus call done on the list >> 6) here we are.... >> >> I think it is not good to use this process as a way of approving things. >> A process mistake was made. > > > 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. > > 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. > > --Richard > >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list >> TLS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
