Working Group Decision on ISSUE-177: ietf-id-wip

On 12/12/2011 04:31 PM, Paul Cotton wrote:
>> If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by
>> December 10th, 2011, we proceed to evaluate the change proposals
>> that we have received to date.
> We did not receive any counter-proposals for ISSUE-177 and therefore
> the only change proposal we have is:
> At the current time, the chairs are issuing a call for consensus on
> this proposal.  If anybody would like to raise an objection during
> this time, we will require them to accompany their objection with a
> concrete and complete change proposal.
> If no objections are raised to this call by December 20th 2011, we
> will direct the editor to make the proposed change, and will only
> consider subsequently reopening this issue based on new information
> and a complete change proposal based on the spec's contents as it
> exists after this change is applied.

At this point, we have received no counter proposals.  We did however, 
receive an objection[1] and a number of posts from people supporting 
that objection.  Upon evaluating that objection, we found that it 
doesn't consist of technical argument, and the argument provided is 
weaker than the case made by the Change Proposal that we do have.

*** Decision of the Working Group ***

Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the Change Proposal to 
cite URI scheme and Web Origin as works in progress:

Of the Change Proposals before us, this one has drawn the weaker

== Next Steps ==

Bug 13724 is to be REOPENED and marked as WGDecision.

Since the prevailing Change Proposal does call for a spec change, the
editor is hereby directed to make the changes in accordance to the
change proposal.  Once those changes are complete ISSUE-177 is to be
marked as CLOSED.

Note that the change requested is to keep the spec updated with respect 
to the statuses of the relevant documents per RFC 2026.  In the time 
since that Change Proposal has been written, one such status has 
changed, and a bug report was opened to reflect that change:

The editor is strongly encouraged to process that bug and any others 
like it concurrently with the execution of this decision.

== Appealing this Decision ==

If anyone strongly disagrees with the content of the decision and would
like to raise a Formal Objection, they may do so at this time. Formal
Objections are reviewed by the Director in consultation with the Team.
Ordinarily, Formal Objections are only reviewed as part of a transition

== Revisiting this Issue ==

This issue can be reopened if new information comes up.  An example of 
new information that would be accepted:

   * Creation of a new RFC by an IETF WG with the intent of superseding
     RFC 2026.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:24:31 UTC