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

[Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>]

On Mon Sep 10 19:51:07 2007, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> At Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:45:26 -0400,
> Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> > > Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > > > Hmm... I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. My point  
> is
> > > that there shouldn't be any consensus calls by anyone on the
> > > ietf-http-auth mailing list. It's not a WG.
> > > Eric:
> > > It sounds to me as if you are attempting to claim that only  
> official
> > IETF activities are permitted to ask the participants in a  
> discussion
> > what they think.
>
> Not at all. There is a huge difference between "ask participants
> in a discussion what they think" and a "consensus call". 
Not really a huge difference. One is asking them what they think, the  
other is, well, asking them whether they all think approximately the  
same thing. I think you're suggesting that a consensus call on a  
non-IETF mailing list, albeit one whose participants are recruited  
from within the IETF participants, should not carry weight within the  
IETF.

That's true in theory, and I agree with it as a simple statement, but  
of course when those self-same participants then report that  
consensus to the IETF, then it becomes a consensus view held by a  
number of interested IETF participants, which has very strong  
consideration when calling IETF consensus as a whole.

But, as you imply, an "IETF consensus call" *is* a huge difference,  
since that implies it is the consensus of the IETF, whereas I don't  
think anyone's claiming that it would be - perhaps it's an  
unfortunate wording choice on Alexey's part that's left you with this  
idea.

In any case, such consensus calls as Alexey could make on a non-IETF  
mailing list concerning an individual document would merely act as a  
useful guide to the author on how to build consensus within the IETF.



> > Clearly it is not going to be possible for a subsequent revision  
> of
> > this document to be re-submitted to the IESG if the contributors  
> to
> > the document cannot achieve consensus among themselves.
>
> But this list is not the list of contributors to this document.
> It's some other list, one with no formal standing for any sort
> of "consensus call." 
No formal standing within the IETF, no.

If you want Alexey to pick a different phrase than "consensus call",  
go for it. It'll mean the same thing, but without the connotations.  
Shall we say "shared opinion call"?



> > > I have no problem with Sam soliciting opinions in his document  
> on any
> > > forum of his choice. What I object to is the notion--again  
> implied in
> > > your above comments--that this document has some formal  
> standing.  As
> > > I said initially, this is an individual submission that failed  
> to
> > > obtain consensus. As such it doesn't need shepherding or  
> shepherding
> > > ADs, any more than any other individual ID.
> > > This is a document for which an Area Director (separate from  
> the one
> > who happened to be the author of the document) wishes to forward
> > progress.  While this does not imply a formal basis for  
> consideration,
> > it does provide incentive to put additional effort into revising  
> it.
> > > Alexey was asked by an AD to take responsibility for this  
> document.
>
> Yes, and my point is that I don't believe that's an appropriate
> procedure. Individual submissions are just that. Given that this one
> has already failed to achieve consensus in a previous IETF LC, if  
> the
> AD wants to actively progress this document--as opposed to just
> passively waiting for some forthcoming revision--then the  
> appropriate
> next step is a BOF followed by a WG.

So you also want a different word to "shepherding"?

Might I suggest "swineherding"? I'll enjoy calling Alexey a  
"swineherd". (Is he allowed to ask for oinks to get a sense of the  
room?)

If you're saying you think there ought to be a BOF, that's a  
statement of opinion I can certainly sympathize with, although in  
this case I think that would merely act as a way of losing momentum.  
I don't see why you assert that a BOF->WG path is the only option,  
though.

Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at jabber.org
 - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
 - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

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