Tony Hain <alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net> wrote:
Did you miss James Polk's comment yesterday? The IESG is already changing
their ways!! They now require 2 independent implementations for a personal
I-D to become a WG draft.
Though I'd rather steer clear of this fray, I must question this.
I'm quite certain the IESG doesn't have such a blanket policy.
The reported incident _may_ be accurate, but such a requirement
would have come from the WG Chair, not the responsible AD, least of
all some other AD. I'd be very surprised if this incident turns out
to be anything more than a WGC (who may _also_ be an AD) requiring
implementation reports for a single I-D proposed for adoption.
I'd also be surprised if there doesn't turn out to be some
mis-communication of what was requested and why.
We do, alas, sometimes misunderstand a policy statement and start
voluntarily following it in cases where the actual policy wouldn't
apply. That is IMHO a measurable part of why the path to PS takes so
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
Ietf mailing list