On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 06:16:28AM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:04 PM Nico Williams <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > If the code points already exist then why can’t we just follow Richard > > Barnes’ proposal: > > > > Because there was a concensus call on adoption, and the WG chairs called > > the consensus as being in favor of adoption. There have been appeals, > > and the appeals did not succeed (I'm not inviting a sub-thread about > > that, just stating the current state of play). > > > > I argued against adoption. But given that it was adopted, publication > > can't be held up by a desire for a different outcome to the adoption > > call. > > As a matter of process, this is simply untrue. WGs need consensus for the > document at the time of publication, notwithstanding the outcome of the > adoption call. The chairs have some power to structure the argument > to rule out repeated discussion of questions that have been asked and > answered, but at the end of the day, documents need consensus to proceed.
Fair. I assumed (and assume) that the chairs would not want to revisit the previous consensus call unless something new comes up, so my take is that if the WG chose to adopt the work, then barring new arguments and/ or data the WGLC should not be held up by disagreements over adoption. IETF LC is definitely a different story -- the IETF can disagree with the WG and not reach consensus on publication. Nico -- _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
