Re: [secdir] review of draft-crocker-id-adoption-05

["Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <[e-mail]>]

[snip]

>>> While I would welcome suggestions of text on this point I am less
>>> that easy-going about documenting worst current practice. In fact,
>>> I think I take issue with what Klaas says: it may well be that
>>> document editors/authors have strong influence on the text that is
>>> generated, but if the WG is being denied the opportunity to review
>>> and object to the text (possibly after a revision of the I-D has
>>> been posted), then the WG is not being run well. So I am happy
>>> with the text as it stands.
>> 
>> I think you misunderstand what I tried to say, I am in no way
>> advocating this, I am stating behavior that I observe. What I am
>> proposing text along the lines of "authors and/or editors may feel
>> like that they "own" the document and strongly influence the final
>> text. The WG chair will have to make sure that WG consensus is
>> properly reflected"
> 
> I'm confused.  I would have thought that the existing paragraph:
> 
> 1.2 Working Group Authority and Consensus
> ...
> At times, a document author/editor can appear to have considerable authority over content, but this is (merely) for efficiency. That is, the chairs can permit authors and editors to proceed with an implied (default) working group agreement, as long as the working group is comfortable with that mode...
> 
> and all of Section 3, deal with this concern sufficiently.

Yes, you are right, apologies.

Klaas