W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: [Ietf-http-auth] Next step on web phishing draft (draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:53:36 -0700
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, discuss@apps.ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, ietf-http-auth@osafoundation.org, saag@mit.edu
Message-Id: <20070908205337.82EC933C39@delta.rtfm.com>

Alexey wrote:
> This message is trying to summarize recent discussions on 
> draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt.
> 
> Several people voiced their support for the document (on IETF mailing 
> list and in various other off-list discussions). Ekr doesn't think that 
> the document should be published in the current form and he has some 
> good technical points that need to be addressed. At least one more 
> revision is needed to addressed recent comments from Ekr and SecDir review.
> 
> It is quite clear that some people got confused about intended status of 
> this document and whether it represents IETF consensus. Sam has 
> clarified what was his intention, but another consensus call is needed 
> to make sure people agree with Sam.
> 
> Subsequent discussions and consensus calls on the document would happen 
> on <ietf-http-auth@osafoundation.org>.
> 
> Alexey,
> in my capacity of shepherd for draft-hartman-webauth-phishing


I object to this procedure.

This document has already had an IETF Last Call, where it failed to
achieve consensus. At this point, it doesn't need additional last
calls to "make sure that people agree with Sam", but rather to go back
to the authors to try to build support in the community. Not liking
the result of the previous Last Call is not a sufficient basis for
issuing another one.

At some point in the future, it may be appropriate to issue another
consensus call, but since this is not a WG mailing list--indeed, the
IESG has twice declined to charter a WG in this area--nor are you the
chair, it doesn't seem to me that you have standing to do that. When
that time comes, I would expect the IESG to designate an appropriate
time and place.

-Ekr
Received on Saturday, 8 September 2007 20:57:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT