Re: [Ietf-http-auth] Request for review and consensus -- draft-hartman-webauth-phishing

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "SM" == SM  <[e-mail]> writes:

    SM> RFC 2606 mentions that an "Informational" specification is
    SM> published for the general information of the Internet
    SM> community, and does not represent an Internet community
    SM> consensus or recommendation.  Section 1.1 of the I-D is at
    SM> odds with that.  I suggest either reviewing the intended
    SM> status of the I-D or changing that paragraph.

Can I get you to focus on what we want the ietf consensus to be rather than on how to accomplish that?
I agree that we'll need to have a discussion of  how  to accomplish that.  I think it is better to have a discussion of what we're accomplishing though.

Can I get you to ignore the intended status, review section 1.1 and
the rest of the draft and comment on whether you think that would be a
good position for the IETF to take on this issue, and if not, what
position the IETF should take?

    SM> Is this I-D getting into user interface guidelines?  If so,
    SM> it's not standard-track material.

No, I believe this ID makes no normative statement about how a user
interface should be constructed.  It does make statements about what
the protocol requires of the user interface at a very abstract
level--well within what I've seen from other standards.