At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:21:36 +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Subsequent discussions and consensus calls on the document > > would happen on <ietf-http-auth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. > > > > ... > > > > Alexey, > > in my capacity of shepherd for draft-hartman-webauth-phishing > > > > > On rereading my message, it probably came out stronger than I intended. > But according to my English-Russian dictionary the verb "would" can > convey "polite request", which was my intent. Hmm... I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. My point is that there shouldn't be any consensus calls by anyone on the ietf-http-auth mailing list. It's not a WG. > >This document isn't a WG document and this mailing list is not a WG > >list. It's inappropriate to hold any kind of "consensus calls". > >Moreover, as there's no WG, Alexey isn't the chair and doesn't > >have any authority to run a consensus or any other process. > > > > > I think you are reading too much into my message. > I didn't say that I will run any consensus calls, shepherding AD has the > authority to do that. > And you are correct of course that I don't have any authority in this > case. I am just working for the shepherding AD, trying to help her in > getting the document through IESG. > > >This document was taken to the IESG and didn't achieve consensus > >in LC. It now has the same status as any other random individual > >ID, nothing more nothing less. > > > > > Yes (the last sentence). > > It is not yet clear to me if you have any problems with the document > being discussed on http-auth mailing list. If you have, can you explain > why and maybe suggest a better place for discussions? > > And if you would like to suggest a better process for moving things > forward, please share your opinion. I have no problem with Sam soliciting opinions in his document on any forum of his choice. What I object to is the notion--again implied in your above comments--that this document has some formal standing. As I said initially, this is an individual submission that failed to obtain consensus. As such it doesn't need shepherding or shepherding ADs, any more than any other individual ID. > And if you would like to suggest a better process for moving things > forward, please share your opinion. As should be clear from my initial review, I don't think this document should move forward. If the author feels differently, he is of course free to revise the document, try to build consensus, and resubmit to the IESG at some point in the future. Since it's an individual submission, no IETF process is needed or appropriate for that. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf