Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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. 

See Section 6.3 of RFC 2418.

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

He is the author of the pre-WG version. He is the editor of the WG version that is the subject of WG discussion.

Scott