Re: Issues around sponsoring individual documents

Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> Mon, 10 September 2007 20:56 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUqJM-00082X-0I; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:56:48 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IUqJK-00082M-WC for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:56:47 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUqJK-00081m-Jr for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:56:46 -0400
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUqJJ-0004Q1-6n for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:56:46 -0400
Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53D914220F; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xwe7FiowLv0e; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [74.95.2.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B483A14220E; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <46E5A10C.1040109@cs.utk.edu>
References: <76D1FAA9-6605-4D54-9DCC-068BC8242420@commerce.net><46E16EF7.5060907@gmail.com><4B7EAB5B-B6A5-44FE-AE66-4B302B70C4B1@commerce.net> <2FD3A323-C59E-4C50-87B9-145C3C2BBAC8@osafoundation.org> <017401c7f3d4$d7a24220$0601a8c0@pc6> <46E5A10C.1040109@cs.utk.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <9020B307-2EFE-4199-BA32-BAED8FCBAC92@osafoundation.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Issues around sponsoring individual documents
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:56:37 -0700
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

On Sep 10, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:

> tom.petch wrote:
>> I said before on this Apps list that I saw some IS as potentially  
>> damaging: the
>> sort of thing I had in mind is the I-D draft-hartman-webauth- 
>> phishing-05.txt,
>> currently  being discussed on the IETF main list.  This has failed  
>> to achieve
>> consensus and the document shepherd now proposes to seek consensus  
>> on a non-IETF
>> list.  OK, the list is public and publicised, but this topic is a  
>> really big one
>> for Internet users and if the IETF cannot muster a Working Group  
>> to hammer the
>> ideas into shape, then we should not be working on it - IMHO.   
>> And, by
>> implication, no AD should be sponsoring it.
>>
>
> I don't entirely agree with that.  If the list is well-known, accepts
> input from anyone, and tries to reach consensus (rather than, say,
> trying to promote some organization's agenda), I don't see why the
> results of a discussion on said list shouldn't be given a fair  
> amount of
> weight by an IETF AD when trying to estimate soundness and community
> support.  Unfortunately I've seen a fair number of intentionally- 
> biased
> lists outside of IETF (and a few inside of IETF).
>
> That said, list consensus (whether an IETF list or not) is not the  
> same
> thing as IETF consensus.  Even a chartered IETF working group  
> should not
> assume that group consensus is a sufficient condition for adoption.

Thanks, this pretty much states my intention and I believe Alexey's  
on discussing the hartman phishing draft :)  The list is public and  
archived and listed on the IETF non-WG lists page.  The fact that  
discussion will take place there is known now to the main IETF list.   
The result will be a bunch of input for Sam to revise his document,  
*not* an IETF consensus we can bash people over the head with :)

Lisa