--On Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 17:21 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
John,
Or, perhaps I'm completely wrong about the sense of the
community. But I would suggest and ask that, before any more
of these documents are pushed or Last Called, you try to
determine the degree to which the community just does not
want to deal with these issues for a while.
As said in my note sent on 2006-08-10, my conclusion after
Montreal
was essentially the same as yours:
1.1. There is insufficient pressure and energy in the
community to justify the effort of reaching consensus on
formal changes to the standards process at this time.
And that was why I was a bit surprised to see you suggesting
finding an AD to sponsor, and presumably Last Call, your draft.
My intention is to use the current list discussion to confirm
or refute this conclusion.
Good. If we disagree, it is only on what a "formal change"
constitutes. I would consider an in-depth summary of what is
wrong with 2026 (at least on any basis other than a personal
informational opinion piece) and any attempt to replace 2026
with a version that reflects current practice to be such formal
changes, if only because they would require almost the same
level of effort in review and consensus-finding as actually
changing the process. But some might disagree.
thanks,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf