Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections

[Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>]

On 11/6/18 9:59 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 3:36 AM
>> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]'
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/18 9:22 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: regext <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 3:07 AM
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections
>>>>
>>>> On 11/06/2018 09:01 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>>>>> Following up on the in-room discussion regarding Human Rights
>>>>> Protocol
>>>> Considerations as compared to Security Considerations and other types
>>>> of considerations that appear in IETF documents:
>>>>>
>>>>> I mentioned at the mic that we don't have any documents representing
>>>> IETF consensus that provide guidance for writing human rights
>>>> protocol considerations. It was mentioned that RFC 8280 describes such
>> guidelines.
>>>> True, it does, but it's an Informational document that "represents
>>>> the consensus of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations Research
>>>> Group of the Internet Research Task Force". RFCs 3552 (Security
>>>> Considerations) and
>>>> 8126 (IANA Considerations) are, in comparison, IETF BCPs. So, I'll
>>>> stand by my comment regarding the lack of _IETF_ consensus on the
>> topic.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Scott, as you know there are also Privacy Considerations, as
>>>> outlined in RFC6973, which also do not constitute community consensus
>>>> but are widely used.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, if something is not a community consensus, it doesn't
>>>> mean we MAY/SHOULD/MUST NOT do it.
>>>
>>> True. It also does not mean that we MUST do it. As Jim Galvin noted,
>> it's up to the editor and WG to decide how to address the topic.
>>>
>>
>> My understanding is that at the point of WG adoption, change control is
>> handed over to the WG, right? So in that case it means that it is up to
>> the WG.
> 
> The editor controls the pen. It's the responsibility of the editor to ensure that the text that appears in the document ultimately represents WG consensus.
> 

I thought that it is up to the WG chair to establish what does or does not constitute consensus. 

Am also a bit confused about the interchangeable use of editor and author here. James is the author, right? 

Cheers,

Niels

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
Datactive Research Group
University of Amsterdam

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3