Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm hesitant to relaunch this thread, but there are a number of points
that incite me to comment. Since there's been a fair amount of
repetition, may I ask people only to chime in with new thoughts?
...
Joe Touch wrote:
...
[re a mandatory section in all drafts]
The goal of putting it in the template is to encourage it be addressed,
rather than forgotten altogether.
However, I'm not at all in favor of requirements to IDs that are added
ad-hoc; until this actually makes it into an RFC as a formal
requirement, it won't be in the word template I manage.
I don't agree that all operational requirements need to be in process
RFCs as formal requirements. We need to give the IESG of the day some
freedom to adapt requirements to current conditions. I felt that the
requirement for IANA Considerations was a fine idea when it was
introduced, and certainly nothing that needed to be BCPized.
Well, all other requirements for IDs and RFCs are described as formal
requirements in RFC 2223.
Your assertion goes to the whole issue of process, and how much leeway
the IESG is given to develop - and then enforce - process changes
without input from the IETF.
I don't accept kings, even those on the IESG.
Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf