Margaret sed:
Personally, I think that if the IETF doesn't want to give the IESG
the right to approve (and refuse to approve) the allocation of IP
options, then the IETF should update RFC 2780.
for what it's worth (speaking as an IETFer, forment IESGer & co-author of
RFC2780) - to me its not a question of the IESG having "the right to
approve (and refuse to approve) the allocation of IP options" - its a
question of process - specifically *how* should the IESG "refuse to
approve" an assignment - thus its not a question of changing 2780
to remove that right
but maybe it is a question of establishing an understanding of
what process the IESG should follow (e.g. make a statement
and subject it to a process along the line of a Last-Call)
this is not that new a concept - ADs have done this in the past (see
for example, Randy's request for input about PIBs and the process that
was followed to see if the IETF should continue to work on CR-LDP) -
I see no reason that the IESG could not do the same sort of thing
note that I think that any assertion that one can not do a last-call
wiithout an ID misses the point - the point being that the IESG
should attempt to get an understanding of the IETF community's
opinion on the IESG's conclusion - calling it a "Last-Call" is
just using a common IETF term as a way to describe a process
so that people can easily understand the concept
Scott
(also see draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy-00.txt)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf