--On Friday, 09 February, 2007 13:20 -0500 Leslie Daigle
<leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com> wrote:
Well, when the question (ION v. informational) came up
within the IESG's discussion of the document, this
is what I offered:
On the ION v. RFC question -- I think this is *really*
teetering on the edge! I've copied below the
relevant section of draft-iab-rfc-editor-03. On
the one hand, this document very clearly does not
...
Leslie,
I really don't care. I can see some advantages to having
draft-iab-rfc-editor and the other two published as sequential
RFCs and am sort of leaning that way. If it isn't, then
draft-iab-rfc-editor is going to need to send people off looking
for IONs, which seems mildly uncomfortable.
If you go that route I would suggest that Jari put some words
into "sponsoring-guidelines" that make it an _initial_ procedure
under the new RFC Ed structure of draft-iab-rfc-editor. Those
words should make it clear that the IESG can revise by ION: I'd
hate to see the publication of this thing as an RFC (to make the
iab-rfc-... package coherent) force the IESG to make new RFCs to
tune its internal rules and procedures, especially since history
tells us that the most likely outcome of _that_ is ignored rules.
I'm sympathetic to Sam's comment about BCPs and _firmly_ believe
that it should apply in general. This, however, is an odd
enough case that it might justify an exception. As usual, I
don't believe that procedural notions, especially semi-informal
ones, should prevent us from doing the right thing. Another
option of course would be for the IAB to cut a deal with the
IESG to publish all three of these as BCPs but without the IESG
messing with the contents of what are really IAB documents.
Probably that could be done by the IESG delegating
consensus-determination for the two draft-iab- pieces to the IAB
and agreeing, in advance, to accept the IAB's decision.
Something like that would actually make a lot of sense to me.
My major objection was to the two-week Last Call. I think, as
a matter of taste, openness, and precedent, that any document
which is headed for RFC publication at the request of the IESG,
regardless of category, should get a four-week Last Call
(announced as a four-week Last Call, not two weeks and maybe
extended) unless it emerges from a formally open process with
clear opportunities for community input and discussion on every
posted version, such as from a WG. This is not about what the
IESG is required to do --protocol-lawyering 2026 is, IMO, really
not interesting and could easily lead to appeals that reach the
ISOC Board-- but about what it should do.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf