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

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

Eric,

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 at osafoundation.org>.
>
> 	...
>
> 	Alexey,
> 	in my capacity of shepherd for draft-hartman-webauth-phishing
>  
On rereading my message, it probably came out stronger than I intended.
But according to my English-Russian dictionary the verb "would" can 
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.
>  
I think you are reading too much into my message.
I didn't say that I will run any consensus calls, shepherding AD has the 
authority to do that.
And you are correct of course that I don't have any authority in this 
case. I am just working for the shepherding AD, trying to help her in 
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.
>  
Yes (the last sentence).

It is not yet clear to me if you have any problems with the document 
being discussed on http-auth mailing list. If you have, can you explain 
why and maybe suggest a better place for discussions?

And if you would like to suggest a better process for moving things 
forward, please share your opinion.

Regards,
Alexey


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