At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:45:26 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote: > > Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > 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. > > Eric: > > It sounds to me as if you are attempting to claim that only official > IETF activities are permitted to ask the participants in a discussion > what they think. Not at all. There is a huge difference between "ask participants in a discussion what they think" and a "consensus call". > Clearly it is not going to be possible for a subsequent revision of > this document to be re-submitted to the IESG if the contributors to > the document cannot achieve consensus among themselves. But this list is not the list of contributors to this document. It's some other list, one with no formal standing for any sort of "consensus call." > > 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. > > This is a document for which an Area Director (separate from the one > who happened to be the author of the document) wishes to forward > progress. While this does not imply a formal basis for consideration, > it does provide incentive to put additional effort into revising it. > > Alexey was asked by an AD to take responsibility for this document. Yes, and my point is that I don't believe that's an appropriate procedure. Individual submissions are just that. Given that this one has already failed to achieve consensus in a previous IETF LC, if the AD wants to actively progress this document--as opposed to just passively waiting for some forthcoming revision--then the appropriate next step is a BOF followed by a WG. > > As should be clear from my initial review, I don't think this document > > should move forward. > > That is your opinion and you are welcome to hold it. > > However, it is clear to me that this problem area cannot be addressed by > organizations such as W3C without the support and collaboration > of the IETF. It may be clear to you, but it certainly hasn't been established in any way I find convincing. In any case, this isn't "the IETF". It's an individual submission. "The IETF" would be a WG, IESG statement, etc. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf