I think nobody is surprised by the opinions being given below....
The IESG wrote:
During IESG evaluation, an AD raised the concern that the
consensus shown during the last call of this document might not be
strong enough to justify approval. In order to determine the strength
of the consensus, the IESG asks the community to focus on the following
questions in last call responses:
1) Do you support the proposal in section 2 of the draft to restore
the AD and IESG's ability to suspend posting rights for longer than
30 days and to approve alternative methods of mailing list control
as originally documented in RFC 2418?
Yes.
2) Do you support the proposal in section 3 to rescind RFC 3683?
No. I believe this action to not be in the best long term interest of
the IETF.
3) Do you have any concerns about approving one part of the draft
without approving the other?
I don't find it clear what this means, so I'm answering two other questions:
- Would you support a document with section 2 and not the current
section 3? Yes, with no concerns.
- Would you support a document with section 3 and not section 2? No, and
I would be more concerned about such a document than I am about the
current document.
4) Do you have any other comments on the document?
This document, if published as an RFC, requires infinite maintenance of
the "Statements.html" URL specified herein.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-03.txt
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf