On 2008-01-18 23:20, Frank Ellermann wrote:
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 ?
Well, mosts CDs seem to have index pages of some kind -
something like http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html would
do it (and that is always up to date, whereas STD1 is normally
out of date).
[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.
I didn't intend that at all. Where do you find that?
[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.
We can debate the details I guess - but don't you think there should
be an appeal path if an IANA-considerations expert reviewer makes
a dubious decision? Document editors aren't appointed by the IESG,
so wouldn't be covered by my language.
Have you integrated your conflict draft into this draft ?
No. There was insignificant community interest in that so
I've dropped it.
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.
That would be a real change rather than an alignment with current
practice.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf