Re: Withdrawing sponsorship of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2007-06-15 10:25, [e-mail] wrote:
> Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
>> If the above text were in effect today, would it be sufficient to
>> cover the situation at issue here? (Now would be an excellent time
>> to consider updates/clarifications to the above text.)
> 
> I don't think so. The text allows IESG to override the allocation
> procedures when they judge there is "strong IETF consensus" to do 
> so.
> 
> In the situation at issue here: IMHO the main question is whether 
> we have rough consensus that this particular draft should be 
> published as non-Standards Track RFC.
> 
> If the IESG thinks we have this consensus, they would just approve 
> the document, and the override procedure would not be needed. 

Yes it would, if registration normally requires Standards Action.

> If 
> the IESG thinks there is no consensus (or it's too rough), the 
> override rule wouldn't apply.
> 
> So while I think the override rule might be valuable in some
> cases, it doesn't seem to help here. 

I think another aspect is whether the IETF chooses to give IANA
some discretion to document usage which is widespread, but not
covered by any IETF document or procedure. It may not be appropriate
to expect the IESG to spend time on every case, or even to look for
consensus when what is being documented is simply a fact of life.
As a friend of mine used to say, you can't vote on facts.

   Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf