Dear Professor Bernstein,
At 08:13 PM 21-12-2024, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
RFC 2418 does _not_ update RFC 2026, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3". My question is about compliance with the standards process:
"Can the WG chairs please clarify which procedure from RFC 2026 (or from
RFCs updating RFC 2026) is being followed here?"
My reading of the question (please see above) is that the appropriate
person(s) to answer the question would be the working group
chair(s). I assume that it's okay if I express an opinion on the question.
The working groups in which I participated used the procedures which
are described in BCP 25. If I am not mistaken, the TLS working group
would also follow BCP 25 as there was community consensus on that
document set. Furthermore, there is an expectation that people
participating in the "Standards Process" were duly informed that BCP
25 is the set of documents used to describe the guidelines for a
(IETF) working group.
Here's an example of non-withdrawn email advocating standardization:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/_D1BzH4T_7RFdduZECmEXj0blqg/
From what I understood, the persons on the thread were discussing
what they would like to see, e.g. I would like to see X
standardized. I don't have much of an opinion, currently, on what
was being discussed/advocated/etc.
Any action within IETF regarding standardization has to follow IETF's
standardization procedures. The email at the top of this thread is
certainly formal action (it's signed by "The Chairs"); I don't find the
email very clear, but it _seems_ to be calling for votes on the idea of
subsequently calling for votes on the idea of adopting a document to
consider for standardization. I don't see how IETF's standardization
procedures allow this.
My quick response to the first sentence (please see text quoted
above) would be Yes. The email at the top of this thread included
some background information and a question at the end. I found the
background information useful. The question at the end has something
to do with adoption calls. In my opinion, the question were somewhat
open-ended.
I read the replies to the email to get a sense of whether people
viewed the question as a request for votes. I don't have a strong
opinion, in this context, about how the persons replied. I would
agree with you on the point that calling for a vote is not a good idea.
The reality is that content discussion such as
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/AWdRH_-V-GxaFNLLBeWB93HjlOc/
was disrupted by this strange chair action. Why didn't the chairs simply
stay quiet regarding the signature and non-hybrid drafts, and wait to
see whether discussion resolves those controversies?
I would have to ask a Chair to know why he/she did not remain
quiet. The Chair might ask me why I was asking the question, or
he/she may ask me some other question. This is where it gets a bit
complicated (for me). It's easier for me not to ask the question and
do other stuff.
My view of that content is that someone believes that A is the
future, someone else believes that B is the future. It reminded me a
FT podcast which was appeared around March 2023. Anyway, the point
which you might be arguing for is that there are two schools of
thought on the topic and it may be better to let the discussion
follow its course.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
