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

[Eric Rescorla <ekr at networkresonance.com>]

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 at osafoundation.org>.

	...

	Alexey,
	in my capacity of shepherd for draft-hartman-webauth-phishing


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. 

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.

-Ekr









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