On May 30, 2009, at 3:17 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Kurt Zeilenga wrote:On May 29, 2009, at 2:36 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:I would ask chairs to put a deadline for reaching the consensus on channel bindings, somewhere around 1 month, 2 months max.With what consequences if the deadline is not met?A default action is applied. It is of course up to the chairs to determine what the default should be. My personal preference would be to initiate WGLC for SCRAM/GS2 as they would be at the time, instead of just abandoning the documents.
My plans are to try to get SCRAM and GS2 back into WGLC in a matter of weeks.
As far as a deadline goes, here what I'm willing to impose at this time, and do now impose the following:
If these documents are not in WGLC by IETF#75, the WG should consider at IETF#75 possible consequences to be immediately implemented. Those consequences could include (but not limited to) 1) immediately issuing the WGLC on the documents with no further changes, 2) issuing a WGLC on the documents within days of the meeting, allowing the Editor to implement an agreed upon set of changes, 3) abandoning the work. If for some reason the WG is not able to reach consensus on consequences, the chairs will issue a WGLC on the document with any further changes immediately after IETF#75.
I ask the WG to defer discussion of possible consequences until IETF#75. The issue is not ripe yet, and would only distract the WG from making progress towards the goal of getting these documents into WGLC before IETF#75.
-- Kurt