John C Klensin wrote:
Jordi,
Unlike several others and their comments, there are significant
parts of this I find useful, at least in terms of identifying
issues that should be examined. There are several other parts
of it with which I disagree. And, ultimately, the presentation
of a list of suggestions without prioritization lowers its
utility considerably. On the other hand, I doubt that consensus
even on the list of suggested principles is possible. Consensus
about how they should be prioritized would be more difficult
yet, and consensus among those with significant experience
planning and running IETF meetings would certainly be no less
difficult.
Thank you John. As usual you have summarized many of my own feelings
better than I have done.
The difficulty, it seems to me, is the combination between that
problem with claiming consensus and what can and should be done
with the document operationally. It is just my opinion, but I
consider anything whose purpose is to tell the IAD, IAOC, or
IESG (or the IETF or IASA more generally) how to behave
procedurally or decide on things to be completely inappropriate
for publication as an independent submission RFC.
My point exactly, again many thanks for your clarity.
One possibility is to just leave it as an I-D, updating it
periodically as needed, but keeping it out there as a
perspective that the IAD might consider.
as Informational only.
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf