Re: Issues around sponsoring individual documents

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

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. 

Keith