On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On tirsdag, november 01, 2005 08:13:26 +0100 Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm told that my recollection is faulty
It's not, that breach of RfC 2418 chapter 4
caused two of the three pending appeals.
to be accurate:
the message that MARID was concluded did contain information about why.
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg00505.html>
You're correct that explanation was properly provided. Frank however
is also correct that closing of the WG was against RFC2418.
In particular the WG was not notified that its closure is being
considered [though it was known that we would not meet the original
schedule listed in charter - but that happens with many other WGs and
for MARID many thought the original schedule was way too aggressive to
begin with] so closing of the group came as somewhat of a surprise.
In a similar case with another WG a successful appeal was made and WG
had to be reconstituted:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/grow_appeal.txt
WRT pending appeals, these are listed on
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Appeals.html>
The two appeals do not concern directly MARID's closing, although one might
surmise that if MARID had been successful, this mess would have been less
messy.
At least one of the appeals would have been directly avoided as the
problem was not present in the documents being worked on by the WG.
Second appeal would probably have been avoided too as WG was just
about to discuss how to deal with the issue and likely would
have found an acceptable solution.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf