--On Wednesday, July 13, 2005 16:57 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
General AD hat on:
I'm concerned that since rfc2434bis is in progress, any
changes to
RFC 2434 should be made in that draft, not by an additional
document.
Otherwise we will end up with a patchwork quilt of documents.
So I'd encourage the authors of iana-reg-policy to figure out
where
their ideas would impact
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis,
and as the saying goes "send text."
Brian,
Let me/us respond to the substantive part of your message
separately. However, I think the above is, if not equivalent
to, at least vaguely similar to: "forget everything that has
been said about consensus documents, if the right people (maybe
defined here as 'authors of original') post an I-D, it
immediately supercedes the published document". I think that
makes me very anxious.
We have other rules that makes this problem even worse: when our
I-D was written, one possibility was that it would gain some
traction, it would be revised once or maybe twice, and we (or
someone else) would request an IETF Last Call. If that, in
turn, went smoothly and quickly, we'd have a document that was
intended to change the way registration procedures were
conducted making a probably-normative reference to a working
draft and the entire "update and fix to reflect community
consensus" blocked both procedurally and on the flow of the RFC
Editor queue. Again, that doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf