Re: [stir] JWT/JSON (was - Re: Review of: draft-ietf-stir-passport-05)

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

While I will leave it to the chairs to decide how the consensus of the
group on such points should be measured, I might suggest an alternative
approach. 

As your review of PASSporT is quite exhaustive, and is a mix of stylistic
concerns, philosophical concerns, and technical concerns, perhaps you
could narrow those down for the group into a list of explicitly
non-trivial blocking issues. Where you can forge a consensus on the list
for those changes to be made, we editors will happily implement them in
the specs. To date, I have not heard a lot of support for the general
direction you seem to be going, and I'm not sure our consensus process
requires us to satisfy all parties to a discussion.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 8/8/16, 3:45 PM, "Dave Crocker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 8/8/2016 3:36 PM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
>> We still have some clean-up to do as a result of the last call
>>comments, I
>> won't argue with that.
>
>
>Good to hear.
>
>A small point of process...
>
>My review of Passport includes items for discussion, not only specific
>and easy suggestions for documentation changes.
>
>In order to avoid having authors do a guessing game about what will
>resolve questions and concerns, they normally pursue those items on the
>working group's mailing list.
>
>I hope that will be happening here, rather than, for example, having the
>authors go off and draft what they think will resolve non-trivial
>issues, without seeking working group review and agreement first...
>
>d/
>
>-- 
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net