On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 9:40 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > I asked what the authorization is under the IETF standardization process > > for the (unclear and unusual) procedure that the chairs are following: > > "Can the WG chairs please clarify which procedure from RFC 2026 (or from > > RFCs updating RFC 2026) is being followed here?" > > > It seems to me -- and judging by list traffic, everyone else -- that the > chairs are asking for which drafts and how to organize the call for adoption. > (Yes, I know it's the holiday season and list traffic might be affected.) > What is the unclear and unusual process you believe the chairs are following?
In case my snark wasn't obvious enough (perhaps "yo dawg, I heard you like calls for adoption so I put a call for adoption in your call for adoption" would have gotten it across better) we already have a way to decide what drafts to adopt: it's called a call for adoption. It's not clear to me why needing any sort of consensus on which to do in order is worth it, and indeed much of the discussion has ended up on the specific drafts people want to see adopted, indistinguishable from that in the actual calls. There probably are good reasons to discuss these all on the table together given the similar subject matters, but the way this has been done is just weird and IMHO pointless. To the extent the goal was to have a discussion about how we approach ciphersuite selection given the factors that hasn't really happened (and IMHO should) because the object level issue is just too tasty. Sincerely, Watson > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
