On 7/5/2010 11:28 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I assume (for I do not know) that people are worried about time involved in
bringing a new RFC to publication.
The IESG often states that it is not difficult to bring an RFC to publication.
In any event, what makes this document more urgent, and in need of less scrutiny
and processing, that any other potential RFC?
Personally, I would expect a document that attends to explicitly and complexly
legal concerns to need /more/ scrutiny than an entry-level technical
specification, not less.
I don't see why this couldn't be divided in the way that the Trust Legal
Provisions have been :
might change something like every 5 years (or less often if we are lucky) and
Also, the implication of your suggestion is that we would have a goals and
framework document /after/ we have actual policies. This seems a bit, ummmm,
backward. It would make more sense to have the two in one document, absent some
expectation of one being more stable than the other.
very quickly if (say) lawyers started beating down the doors.
if? so we really don't have an urgent requirement?
Ietf mailing list