> Yes, the whole FATT at that time participated It should have been better to repeat the list, since there were five weeks (and many emails) between the announcement and that summary. But that could be seen as nit. I still believe you overstated the situation. But I apologize.
* 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/shepherdwriteup-template/workinggroup__;!!GjvTz_vk!UDtYmcMqbuwtHEEzOLEsLSU95ddDf3sP3HblgDyAuuvlhPBQuwbrWJCJe2mtlq5d3RCKDadEuy9vjfNcgX8HdA$> I suppose you can say that items 1 or 2 in that list could cover this, but I think that ignores the fact that while there seems to be strong consensus that more formal analysis is good, saying anything other than “`N` people recommended formal analysis but they were in the rough” seems like saying more than is justified. Since the current proposal will identify the team that reviewed each document, the shepherd will be able to exactly specify how many people wanted the analysis compared to the overall WG consensus.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
