--On Thursday, 06 March, 2008 16:48 -0600 Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 3/6/08 at 4:24 PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
Hmm. If people believe that this document should be
processed as a BCP, thereby presumably constraining
long-term IESG behavior and adding to our procedural core,
should it be added to the PUFI agenda for preliminary
discussion?
The PUFI BOF chair, who has not completed his list of
currently desired items on the grand list of things to cover
in this BOF, hereby groans at the thought of adding another.
The PUFI BOF chair has the sympathy of the former POISSON chair.
However, if the community is ready to take on a significant
package of changes to our basic procedures, then, IMO, it ought
to have an opportunity to prioritize which ones it wants to
address and to discuss how it wants to discuss those and what,
if anything, it wants to do about the others. To the extent to
which the General Area AD has decided that PUFI is the best way
to explore those issues, I think it is incumbent on PUFI that it
have the whole list on its agenda, not just one document that,
because of either timing or authorship, was given Last Call
treatment not afforded to any of the others.
john
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf