Post #1151347

2026-04-14 16:35 UTC

@pedromj@mastodon.social @djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to @paulehoffman@infosec.exchange @rsalz@ioc.exchange Actually, working groups can pressure for changes in a draft. Once a draft is accepted by a working group, the status of the authors change. They are not the only one in charge of the text anymore. What they write must reflect the consensus of the WG, and if that consensus includes adding a warning, they have to do that.

Replies (2)

@pedromj@mastodon.social 2026-04-14 22:16

@huitema@social.secret-wg.org @djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to @paulehoffman@infosec.exchange @rsalz@ioc.exchange I know this, but one must be active in a WG to convince enough members to vote for something like adding some text. It is not easy to be so active sporadically. It is much more feasible to write concerns in an I-D ---a formal document with familiar structure--- and discuss it in some MLs and/or meetings.

Open ##1151346
@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to 2026-04-15 04:15

@huitema @pedromj @paulehoffman @rsalz The burden is the other way from what you're describing. The WG can't issue non-consensual RFCs. Conflicts must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion; if they aren't resolved then issuing an RFC would violate IETF rules for how WGs operate. It's not merely that the authors have to add a warning if there's consensus on a warning. There's no default entitlement for documents to sail through.

Open ##1249795