On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 09:48:29AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Pete Resnick wrote: > > I think you're probably right. I know I've chaired in the past when I > > didn't see the signs of bad things happening and failed to get out in > > front of it. But the appeal, even if fruitless in the end, would have at > > least made the chair, the AD, and IESG do a bit of post-mortem to figure > > out what went wrong, so we should figure out some way to make them less > > painful (as per your last paragraph). > > In this case, going via the ISE is a fine solution, provided this path > isn't suddently blocked in the future before publication of the > document, and providing the ISE agrees to publish. I have no idea what > we would have to do procedurally, if the ISE path fails for some reason. > As we cannot really appeal the ISE decision, we'd have to go back to the > WG for an appeal, which also seems to not be the right place. The ISE path can work some of the time, but it may not be a good habit. First, why even bother with the ISE? Why not just make the relevant registries Expert Review? Then take this to the limit. Suppose we did some number TLS extensions this way, with several overlapping somewhat, but in ways the authors did not care to unify. What would happen? Well, we'd risk ending up with some balkanization of the protocol. App devs would have to pick TLS stacks that support necessary extensions, and might find none has the combination of extensions they desire. Oof. Nico --
