Re: [Trans] Compatibility of name redaction and EV

[Ben Laurie <[e-mail]>]

On 19 August 2014 13:42, Stephen Kent <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Ben,
>
>> ...
>>
>>> It's rather unusual for an author of an RFC to publicly state that he
>>> plans
>>> to ignore the RFC if it doesn't match his implementation plans.
>>
>> As you are fond of pointing out, I am not the author, I am one of the
>> editors. I am perhaps overly honest in stating up front that I will
>> not unconditionally follow the consensus decisions of the WG, but
>> surely this is far from being a unique stance.
>
> I don't recall making that observation about your role in generating
> this doc. Can you point to a message from me that made that statement,
> i.e., that you are an editor, not a doc author? I just don't recall.

I thought that was the gist of several of your comments wrt to
consensus in the last WG meeting, but I could be misrepresenting you.
If so, my apologies.

> I agree that it is common to speak of doc editors, especially when the
> content is derived from many sources, e.g., WG list discussions. In this
> case,
> the source for the initial doc material was very narrow, and I believe
> Eran said that you are the one responsible for making edits to address
> issues.
> So, forgive my choice of words to describe your role.
>
> As for a public statement wrt ignoring WG consensus (in an implementation)
> by a doc "editor" it strikes me as very unusual, if not unique, based on
> my 28 years of IETF participation.

But that's not what I'm saying - what I'm saying is I can't say in
advance that this standard is one I want to implement, given that I
don't know what it says yet. I think it would be pretty crazy to say
otherwise.

I am not saying this is a _likely_ outcome, just that its a possible one.

It doesn't seem like a point worth dwelling on.