SM, > >There is text that affects the secretarial role in section 6.1. > >Should any of that be updated? In particular, given the discussion > >of delegation in the reviews of this document, should delegation > >be discussed more explicitly in this section? This would be a > >good place to discuss whether it's appropriate for a chair to > >delegate calling consensus to a secretary. > > I did not find an answer to the last sentence. There is a comment > from Dave Crocker about "reasonable IETF process" [1]. As Robert > Sparks noted there have been two comments during the Last Call for > the draft (including his review) The authors and shepherd are still working on synthesising the comments received during last call and preparing their answers. i don't believe this document is at the top of their list of priorities - it will not lead to shipping code that resolves to revenue! > and I note that the conclusion of Last Call was "no consensus". You may note what you like, but please don't try to call consensus on this process. I am the responsible AD for that stage of the process and I note that while the last call period has expired, the discussion of the last call comments is still slowly) on-going and making any attempt at a consensus call would be premature. > I would appreciate some input about the following questions: > > (a) Is it appropriate for a WG Chair to delegate calling consensus > to a WG Secretary? > > (b) Is it appropriate for a WG Chair to delegate calling consensus > to a shepherd? > > (c) Is the determination of IETF Consensus based on public review? I suppose you are hoping for this list to provide "some input". Fair enough, but why don't you start the ball rolling by giving *your* opinions and the reasoning you have used to reach your conclusions? Cheers, Adrian