[Standards] Veto on "Privileged Entity"

Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Wed Dec 17 13:24:22 UTC 2014

> On Dec 17, 2014, at 3:52 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> On 17 December 2014 at 05:15, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com <mailto:kurt.zeilenga at isode.com>> wrote:
> While your OP implies that “we” (presumedly “the community”) should take a step back and consider model and terminology issues, in your latest comments, it seems more that you want the authors to adopt a this model and terminology you originally wanted “we” to consider.
> While I would not have issue if you. independent of consideration of this ProtoXEP opened a discussion about how to model XMPP authorization services and what terminology should be used, I think it inappropriate to put this ProtoXEP on “hold” pending such discussions.  As you note in your OP, such an effort might not pan out.

> We'd also probably not be having this discussion, which is beginning to become quite useful.

Obviously in absence of some other instigation of this discussion, yes, we wouldn’t be having it.   Aside from my concerns of use of a veto to instigate this discussion, I must note that the stink of this discussion might well have been much different if had been instigated in a less combative way.   Any general discussion instigated by veto is going to be tainted by that veto.

> No, you asked specifically what the authors could do; I gave an answer to that.

Yes, I asked because you failed to provide the authors with any action they could take to remedy your objections with the ProtoXEP.   Unfortunately the actions you suggest they take to cure your objections are far worse than the authors doing nothing, hoping that for whatever reason you change your vote.  Which shows, I think, demonstrates inappropriate your veto is.

It seems you are holding this ProtoXEP hostage for a general discussion and possibly more (“a better system”?).

So what happens now if say this general discussion stalls?   At some point you simply change your vote?  Or do you change what you ask the authors for?  Or do you really going to hold out until the authors to recast their document in the ABAC model and terminology?

— Kurt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20141217/5c422c4c/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list