On Mon Sep 10 19:51:07 2007, Eric Rescorla wrote:
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".
Not really a huge difference. One is asking them what they think, the
other is, well, asking them whether they all think approximately the
same thing. I think you're suggesting that a consensus call on a
non-IETF mailing list, albeit one whose participants are recruited
from within the IETF participants, should not carry weight within the
IETF.
That's true in theory, and I agree with it as a simple statement, but
of course when those self-same participants then report that
consensus to the IETF, then it becomes a consensus view held by a
number of interested IETF participants, which has very strong
consideration when calling IETF consensus as a whole.
But, as you imply, an "IETF consensus call" *is* a huge difference,
since that implies it is the consensus of the IETF, whereas I don't
think anyone's claiming that it would be - perhaps it's an
unfortunate wording choice on Alexey's part that's left you with this
idea.
In any case, such consensus calls as Alexey could make on a non-IETF
mailing list concerning an individual document would merely act as a
useful guide to the author on how to build consensus within the IETF.
> 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."
No formal standing within the IETF, no.
If you want Alexey to pick a different phrase than "consensus call",
go for it. It'll mean the same thing, but without the connotations.
Shall we say "shared opinion 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.
So you also want a different word to "shepherding"?
Might I suggest "swineherding"? I'll enjoy calling Alexey a
"swineherd". (Is he allowed to ask for oinks to get a sense of the
room?)
If you're saying you think there ought to be a BOF, that's a
statement of opinion I can certainly sympathize with, although in
this case I think that would merely act as a way of losing momentum.
I don't see why you assert that a BOF->WG path is the only option,
though.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxx
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf