Hi Nico, As a point on the process, I don't think anyone is proposing rubber-stamping. We are instead only suggesting that a set of work that has consensus does not need to be held up by adding new work that does not have consensus.
The outcome of points raised during a WGLC does not need to be a change in the document, if the group does not have consensus that the suggested change is correct. Particularly, as in this case, a comment during WGLC to add new functionality that is not part of addressing the intended scope of a working group deliverable does not need to be added before progressing. I think this is a case in which we have consensus on the basic ticket requests, but adding ticket reuse is (based on the way this thread has not converged) is in the rough. Thanks, Tommy > On Jan 31, 2020, at 5:23 PM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:15:40PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote: >> If the scope of a document can be continually expanded during last call, it >> can be indefinitely postponed. > > There is no attempt to postpone, and the WGLC has finished. No new > issues will be raised. But the ones that were raised _will_ be > addressed. Being left on the rough side of consensus happens; having > substantive issues raised in a timely manner ignored must not. > > The IETF is not a rubber-stamp SDO. We have a process. We don't just > pay it lip service. WGLC is not going through the motions. The > prescribed process will be followed. > > Nico > -- _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
