> Here is a summary across all participants"). Yes, the whole FATT at that time participated
> if the WG consensus is to not take the advice of the panel, then that will be part of the shepherd writeup, including an explanation. If during the work of the working group for a document we got a triage from the FATT and came to consensus to action those recommendations, that sounds like working group activity that is relevant to the evolution of the document, no? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/shepherdwriteup-template/workinggroup On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 4:44 PM Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > > All discourse between the FATT and the WG has names attached, including > what has happened already. > > > > Not true. > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vK2N0vr83W6YlBQMIaVr9TeHzu4/ > ("Here is a summary across all participants"). > > > > > All decisions about how to block, evolve, last call, whatever is up to > working group consensus. > > > > Of course. Except that during the interim, either you or Sean said that > if the WG consensus is to not take the advice of the panel, then that will > be part of the shepherd writeup, including an explanation. Do I need to > review the video to figure out exactly who and at what time it was said? > > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
