On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:43:32 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
s much as we might like the handy "default yes"/"default no"
terminology, the reality is that individual submissions for the
standards track have varying levels of support and interest
when they reach the point of IETF Last Call. Defaulting all
proposals to "no" that have no working group behind them
collapses that too far, in my personal opinion.
If one believes that the IETF has no problem with publishing useless, wasteful
specifications and no problem with excessive concentration of authority and
responsibility in the IESG, then by all means, the model you, Harald and Sam
espouse should remain.
Unfortunately, the IETF community has repeatedly, and even formally, expressed
concern about both of these issues, so I was merely noting a pretty
straightforward means of dealing with both of them, in regards individual
submissions seeking IETF approval.
Rather than be mystical assessors of vague sources of support, the IESG needs
to make major decisions more transparent. With respect to approval of IETF
documents, that is one of the reasons for Last Call. And as I noted, it used
to be used for that quite pointedly.
The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for adopting
an individual submission is to require that the support be demonstrated ON THE
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
Ietf mailing list