* Starting a new subject to separate discussions on the FATT. That’s sensible, thanks for doing this.
Let me try to answer your question this way. Here is how I view the timeline: 1. Chairs proposed a review panel 2. WG commented (my summary: consensus in favor of more analysis, disagreed with some of the specifics) 3. Chairs published panel, no acknowledgement of the feedback, no changes made 4. Summary report of analysis given If anyone disagrees with this, please let me know. Ideally with URLs pointing to messages/changes that I am forgetting. If we take the above outline as correct, then what must happen is what I’ve said before: start over. Make sure to listen and acknowledge the WG feedback and act on it. * Please understand that we are working though defining the process here. The current structure of the FATT does not allow for direct attribution of FATT feedback to specific individuals. Perhaps we may be able to adjust this in the future, but this is as it stands now. Sure. To me that means it must get thrown out. * it would be more helpful to have specifics about how we can improve and what is missing in the current process. In addition to the above… * How does the WG incent people to do analyses that the WG wants? * How long would the WG be willing to hold up an optional feature? * A core feature? * Will there be consensus calls on the final process document? If not, there really should be a good explanation of why not. * We owe the working group a revised definition of the current process which we will provide soon. Looking forward to it. Seriously. Hope this helps.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
