Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I suggest that instead of disturbing a couple of thousand people
with this discussion, it would be profitable to take it up
with the RAI Area Directors. They certainly know more about it
than I do.
The problem, Brian, is that the discussion is about IETF process, including a
serious question about decision(s) by the IESG.
That is rather more broad than the RAI area.
I don't see the process issue. Snipping from the Last Call, it was perfectly
clear what the IESG planned to do.
Subject: Last Call: 'Real-Time Facsimile (T.38) - audio/t38 MIME Sub-type
Registration' to Historic
The IESG has received a request from an individual to consider the
- 'Real-Time Facsimile (T.38) - audio/t38 MIME Sub-type Registration '
This document was Last Called as Proposed Standard in the past, but
review by the Audio Video Transport Working Group and the
IESG led to concern that the format not become a precedent
for future media types. It should be registered because it is
required for a very specific application within ITU SG 16's
T.38's real-time fax support, but shown in the RFC as literally
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org or ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by
Ietf mailing list