Brian E Carpenter wrote:
the question is whether people are interested enough to comment...
...and maybe also how interested the author is to answer comments:
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/27581/match=2026>
[RFC 3700]
You still propose to kill STD 1 claiming that everybody is online
today. What with CDs containing all RFCs, or similar collections
for offline use ?
[standards action]
Removing the right to initiate a "standards actions" from the
community is a bad idea. That's not "aligning with reality", I
tested it, it works like a charme, the RFC in question meanwhile
got its number.
[Draft Standard]
"Deployable Standard" for DS is nice.
[conflicts]
Does "persons appointed to IETF roles" include document editors
and expert reviewers ? I think Chairs can act as buffer between
angry folks and editors, and so hope it does NOT include editors.
Have you integrated your conflict draft into this draft ? It could
be better to keep them apart. While you are at it you could adopt
John's proposal to replace "two months" by "six weeks" for appeals.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf