--On Monday, 21 January, 2008 16:50 -0500 "Scott O. Bradner"
<sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> wrote:
sorry - it does not make any sense at all to last call this
document
it has had no meaningful discussion - we should not be
updating our core process documents this flippantly
FWIW, while I don't see anything flippant in either the author's
intentions or in the Last Call announcement, I have to agree
with Scott. Only a couple of people commented on this prior to
the Last Call announcement. I fear that confirms my hypothesis
that the community has gotten burned out on process work and
that it is going to be very hard to get meaningful consensus on
changes across the community (rather than among those who get
excited about process issues).
Even ignoring the issue of how meaningful consensus is to be
determined, my recollection is that some of the few comments
pointed out problems and suggested changes which the author
agreed to make. That would suggest that we should at least see
a revision (to -03) that reflects the author's latest thinking
before a Last Call is announced.
Significant changes to 2026 --even changes that the author
believes are just updates to reflect current practice-- are
important enough to justify, e.g., a plenary presentation and
discussion in Philadelphia. We've got too much experience
making changes to process documents that seemed reasonable, did
not get careful and extensive review, and that turned out to
have significant unintended consequences. A conclusion that the
document isn't important enough to justify plenary discussion or
the equivalent is, for me, a conclusion that we don't need it
right now.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf