> RFC 2418 specifically says the output of the design team is subject to > WG consensus. That's not true of the FATT right now: it goes > separately into Shepard Report, comes after WGLC, etc. Doesn't seem to > me that it's within what was contemplated there. And what FATT is > assessing is not a narrow technical thing but a tradeoff between doing > a lot of specialized work, and being comfortable with the introduced > risks.
Yes, using a design team is not exactly what is being said the FATT would do. In my opinion it is close enough to the goal -- do we want formal analysis for this? -- and it is within the structure and policies of how the IETF work. Yes, as part of shoving the square FATT peg into the round design group hole, some things get shaved off: those things which are not IETF-like. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
