Eliot Lear wrote:
few if any specifications get to draft or full standard,
and no review of PS had ever been done along the timelines
specified in RFC 2026.
Okay, let's nail this, I like to see 2195 and 3464 as DS,
what exactly can I do ?
Numerous proposals were made within the working group.
Bert's idea was nice, establish a timeout for PS, and after
that time move the PS automatically to historic. Of course
we'd need a long transitional period for the PS not covered
by "decruft".
What I would like to know is what we could have done to
prevent this from happening.
Don't try to replace the "three stage" process because it's
in essence good. The detail where the IESG is supposed to do
the whole work apparently needs fixing.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf