Re: [TLS] Setting Policy for Extensions

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

A better way to word this might be to say that all TLS extensions I-Ds
must be announced at an IETF mailing list that is appropriate for
discussion of TLS (for now, the TLS WG's list), and that upon request
by any appropriate WG's chairs or by any IESG members, any such TLS
extension proposal would have to require WG review -- the outcome of
which must be consensus on the question of whether the proposal may or
may not progress and/or whether it should be adopted as a WG work item
(thus requiring WG LC, not merely WG review).  I think this would
result in a high likelihood that folks who might object to a given
proposal would have a chance to have their objections heard, and then
for consensus to be reached.

Of course, there might be situations where objections will be ignored
(because WG chairs and IESG members are unwilling to request WG
review).  An appeal path to the IAB might be desirable, but I
seriously doubt we'd ever need it.

Nico
--