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.
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.
> 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.
He is trying to fulfill that request. There is no reason to
put
hurdles in his path.
> As should be clear from my initial review, I don't
think this document
> should move forward.
That is your opinion and you are welcome to hold it.
However, it is clear to me that this problem area cannot be
addressed by
organizations such as W3C without the support and
collaboration
of the IETF.
Jeffrey Altman
_______________________________________________
Ietf-http-auth mailing list
Ietf-http-auth osafoundation.org
http://lists.osafoundation.org/cgi-bin/mai
lman/listinfo/ietf-http-auth
|