Stewart, et.al.,
First, there has been some ambivalence regarding what the issue with
an AD taking this type of decission.
- there is no doubt that an AD may take this decision, module enough
involvement in the wg and giódd understanding of the issues
- it might be discussed if the right decision were taken, from my
point of view (personal opinion) I can live with this decision
Comment on Stewart's comment inline.
On 03/03/2020 20:32, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 2 Mar 2020, at 21:43, Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi,
I have no information about the situation but I do not understand why an AD
would be declaring consensus in any case -
that is normally the responsibility of WG chairs. see RFC 2418 section 3.3
The only active/available WG chair was a co-author of this draft.
Cheers,
Sander
As a WGC that has been in a position where the chairs had a CoI, I(we) asked
the WG Secretary to manage the document, and that is what other WGs do. Look at
the DetNet data plane drafts as an example. That means that the decision is
taken at the lowest level and leaves the AD continue in the oversight role.
Yes - a much better practice. You could also appoint working group chair
from another group as "shepherd" and explicitly delegate the task to
call consensus after the wglc.
I think that PALS did this for me once when both chairs were draft
authors.
/Loa
Anyway from the discussion on the list this probably need to go for review by
the other two RTG ADs to check that they are happy with the decision or to
recommend some other action.
- Stewart
--
Loa Andersson email: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
