Hi Alexey, > And if you would like to suggest a better process for moving things > forward, please share your opinion. Suggest: Properly document comments and reviews somewhere. I've found the current draft, and lots of arguments about change suggestions - but there's no documented historical records of those suggestions. Question: what's the best way to submit comments and reviews - can we just re-write the entire draft, annotating our changes, and submit that? Are professionals and experts even invited/allowed to comment? Is there a formal procedure for dealing with suggestions (eg: attributing, documenting, discussing, leading to an ultimate official public inclusion (or exclusion with reasoning). Kind Regards, Chris Drake Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 3:21:36 AM, Alexy wrote: AM> Eric, AM> Eric Rescorla wrote: >>At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:59:57 +0200, >>Eliot Lear wrote: >> >> >>>Bernard, >>> >>> >>>>I agree with EKR here. Failed consensus is failed consensus. RFC 2026 >>>>does not support the process that has been recommended here. >>>> >>>> >>>Perhaps Sam and Lisa can explain a bit more as to what process they >>>intend to use. It seems that Alexey is providing a forum for discussion >>>to improve the document, and I see nothing wrong with that. I would >>>imagine that both the IESG and the community will still get their say, >>>so what precisely is the problem? >>> >>>This having been said, it seems to me that in order to address EKR's >>>(and perhaps others') concerns, the document will need substantial >>>work. I welcome efforts to improve that work. Where should that >>>happen? Must Sam do it alone? >>> >>> >>Sam can of course consult anyone who he chooses for opinions, >>reviews, etc. However, Alexey's original message indicated >>something rather different. Namely: >> >> >> 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 >> >> AM> On rereading my message, it probably came out stronger than I intended. AM> But according to my English-Russian dictionary the verb "would" can AM> convey "polite request", which was my intent. >>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. >> >> AM> I think you are reading too much into my message. AM> I didn't say that I will run any consensus calls, shepherding AD has the AM> authority to do that. AM> And you are correct of course that I don't have any authority in this AM> case. I am just working for the shepherding AD, trying to help her in AM> 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. >> >> AM> Yes (the last sentence). AM> It is not yet clear to me if you have any problems with the document AM> being discussed on http-auth mailing list. If you have, can you explain AM> why and maybe suggest a better place for discussions? AM> And if you would like to suggest a better process for moving things AM> forward, please share your opinion. AM> Regards, AM> Alexey AM> _______________________________________________ AM> Ietf-http-auth mailing list AM> Ietf-http-auth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AM> http://lists.osafoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ietf-http-auth _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf