Ted,
Speaking for myself here but I suspect that other ADs are in the same
boat ... I'm keen to make sure my Discusses are within the parameters
of the discuss criteria ION regardless of the official status of this
document. Agree we need to sort out what we the end result is of
several experiments. I believe Russ is working to get that some IESG
agenda time.
Cullen
On Mar 6, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
The call for comments on IONs seems to have ended without
clarifying the effect of the end of the experiment on the standing
of current IONs. For most of them, I honestly don't think the
standing is much of an issue. But for the "discuss criteria" ION,
I believe it is a serious issue. At this point, it is difficult to
know
whether the discuss criteria document is in force or not, and the
extent to which the issuing body is bound by it.
I think this is a very bad thing.
I call on Russ to restore this document to its original status as
an Internet Draft and to process it as a BCP. IESG DISCUSSes are
a very serious part of our process at this point. Having a community
agreed standard to which IESG members could be held was always a
better
path than than a document approved only by the IESG. Now that
the ION experiment is over and the status of its document is in
limbo, things are even worse.
The current document is here:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-discuss-criteria.html
for those readers playing the home game.
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf