Re: [Ietf-http-auth] Re: Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>]

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.

Indeed, that is exactly what I was trying to say.

Lisa and Sam suggested to use ietf-http-auth at osafoundation.org and I 
thought it made sense.

> I would imagine that both the IESG and the community will still get 
> their say, so what precisely is the problem?

Exactly. It is not like ietf-http-auth at osafoundation.org is a closed 
moderated mailing list.

> 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?

If people can suggest a better place for work on this document, please 
speak up now.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf