At 07:48 16-03-10, Tony Hansen wrote:
I agree, there did seem to be lots of support for it, including my
own. But I don't think anyone really wanted to stand up and act as
the "WG Chair" and declare concensus. After all, this is a basic
infrastructure item that spans the entire IETF+IRTF+IAB space. Who
is in charge of managing that entire community?
It falls under the IAB. If the RFC Style Guide is a policy matter,
the IAB approves of the change. If it is within the responsibilities
of the RFC Series Editor (Transitional), he could work on this matter
as it is the main preoccupation of the IETF Community this month.
I have some unfounded theories about how this may be played. If the
populace brings this up to the IESG, the latter will redirect the
request to the IAB. The IAB will set up a committee to work with the
RFC Series Editor on the matter. Decision by committee has its
advantages as nobody gets to take the fall when things go wrong. It
also offers some protection for the RFC Series Editor. That is a
necessary as the latter is part of a rare species.
One might want to consider whether the question of document format is
so critical that it has to be addressed immediately. The resolution
will likely take over a year but let's not get into such details.
To sum up, this is a debate where each "camp tries to convert the
other. Like all the religious wars of the past, logic is not the
decisive tool".
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf