Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:59:23PM -0800, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> As a point on the process, I don't think anyone is proposing
> rubber-stamping. We are instead only suggesting that a set of work
> that has consensus does not need to be held up by adding new work that
> does not have consensus.

A substantive issue was raised.  Until that is disposed of through
normal consensus-finding mechanisms, there is no consensus for the I-D
to progress.  That's how the process works.

> The outcome of points raised during a WGLC does not need to be a
> change in the document, if the group does not have consensus that the

Correct.  But first that consensus needs to be reached.

> suggested change is correct. Particularly, as in this case, a comment
> during WGLC to add new functionality that is not part of addressing
> [...]

That's not how the process works.  Of course a substantive issue raised
at WGLC or IETF LC time (or IESG review time) can require new
functionality to be addressed properly!

There is no rule that no functionality may be added as a result of a
WGLC/IETF LC comment.  Or that comments that would require new
functionality can be rejected by the I-D's authors alone.

Nico
--