Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 10:52 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] "Considerations" Sections
>
> On 11/6/18 1:00 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
>
> Are you saying that all people who are listed on RFCs that previously have
> been adopted by WGs are actually editors, and not RFC authors? I think
> this is not standing practice across the IETF.

Read that section of RFC 2418. Our chairs can answer any other questions you have about roles in this WG.

Scott