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.
* [Joe] The output of the FATT is input to the working group consensus process. The intent to include information about the FATT review into the shepherd writeup is to inform the IESG that review has taken place similar to other reviews that have taken place on the document. I don't understand how this is out of the ordinary. I am glad to hear that I misunderstood what was said at the interim. Thanks for the correction.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
