Frank,
Thanks for the comments.
On 2008-01-19 21:58, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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always up to date, whereas STD1 is normally out of date).
IMO they should resume to publish ??00 RFCs as STD 1 at least when
there is a new or updated STD. If they really hate it there should
be a "last" STD 1 deprecating itself. Some tools (not only offline
collections with an old snapshot) and users still expect that STD 1
exists, whatever 2026bis says, a last STD 1 also needs to be clear.
Yes, I agree that *either* we should cleanly terminate the STD 1
mechanism *or* we should implement it as originally documented.
The current situation (where STD 1 was last updated in July 2004)
is clearly misleading for outsiders. My personal preference is
clean termination, but obviously that should be a consensus question.
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?
3.14 == old ==
| or, in the case of a specification not associated with a Working
| Group, a recommendation by an individual to the IESG.
3.14 == new ==
| or, in the case of a specification not associated with a Working
| Group, an agreement by an Area Director to recommend a
| specification to the IESG.
You move the "action" right from the community to IESG members.
Oh, OK, I need to put in more words to say something like
"a recommendation by an individual to an Area Director willing
to sponsor the specification..."
I didin't mean to remove the individual from the process.
I also hated it when you (or Jari ?) did in essence the same with
the right to create a "Pubreq" for non-WG documents.
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-ad-sponsoring.html
is intended to make it *easier* for individuals by actually
clarifying the procedure - we had lots of experience that
just sending a draft to the IESG collectively really didn't work.
It's only when an AD is willing to actively push a document
that it will get the IESG's attention.
(And BTW this does work - just look at the number of non-WG
drafts that make it onto the IESG agenda.)
Brian
don't you think there should be an appeal path if an IANA-
considerations expert reviewer makes a dubious decision?
Yes, my two examples were for both sides, there's no WG Chair who
could "protect" expert reviewers...
Document editors aren't appointed by the IESG, so wouldn't be
covered by my language.
...good, I missed "by the IESG" after "appointed to IETF roles".
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf