From: "Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <kwiereng@cisco.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Thread-Topic: review of draft-crocker-id-adoption-05
Thread-Index: AQHPE5I77i18p0U40EKrtcrrUBqywpqJdMeAgAAPmYD//6x+FYAAaKaAgAR4PoA=
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:16:08 +0000
Message-ID: <D57D98B9-432D-4DD3-93B1-BC9F8D22A4D2@cisco.com>
References: <8D28F665-CDF8-4FAA-869E-CA5EF6E673D2@cisco.com>
 <52D950F9.7050909@bbiw.net>,
 <05a201cf13a3$7a2e10b0$6e8a3210$@olddog.co.uk>
 <C1C3F240-7C57-4D90-8C1D-4D068409A73E@cisco.com> <52D96FCB.5010002@bbiw.net>
In-Reply-To: <52D96FCB.5010002@bbiw.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <F91456CA85981A4594789863F941AAAE@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-crocker-id-adoption.all@tools.ietf.org"
 <draft-crocker-id-adoption.all@tools.ietf.org>,
 "<adrian@olddog.co.uk>" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>,
 "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] review of draft-crocker-id-adoption-05
Precedence: list

[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.
>>=20
>> 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"
>=20
> I'm confused.  I would have thought that the existing paragraph:
>=20
> 1.2 Working Group Authority and Consensus
> ...
> At times, a document author/editor can appear to have considerable author=
ity 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 mod=
e...
>=20
> and all of Section 3, deal with this concern sufficiently.

Yes, you are right, apologies.

Klaas=