>>>>> "Andy" == Andy Bierman <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Andy> This is not an alternative. If you are not willing to make
Andy> your technical objections to a technical specification
Andy> publicly, then they cannot be part of the IETF
Andy> decision-making process.
At one level I agree here.
Andy> What's to prevent a WG Chair from "padding" the anonymous
Andy> "votes"? If 5 people in public (WG meeting or mailing list)
Andy> are for some proposal, and the Chair says, "I heard from 6
Andy> people who are against this, but don't want their identities
Andy> known, so the proposal is rejected." Not acceptable.
I think that would be unacceptable. I think that a WG chair going to
people who expressed private concerns and saying something like "Hey,
you need to express your concerns in public. They are shared; if all
of the people who have these concerns bring them forward then we would
have enough interest in dealing with this issue. You have a week," is
entirely fine.
I also think it is fine for a WG chair to look at private technical
concerns, realize they are correct and raise them to the WG. "I
received a private concern; that mail pointed out that the following
trivial attack will break the security of this protocol. We are not
moving forward until someone fixes this problem or someone explains
why I'm misunderstanding the situation."
It's probably even fine to say "I received a lot of private concerns.
Are the people willing to make public comments firmly behind their
support?"
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf