Jim,
Is there a reason that RFC 5620 (RFC Editor Model Version 1) has not been
taken into account while doing this update? It would seem that this could
change some of the processes from what they are today.
I think we have taken it into account, or can you describe more exactly
what issue you are thinking of?
In my e-mail, I explained that our proposed resolution can be thought of
as an additional process rule on top of 5620 and other relevant RFCs.
There are alternative resolutions that can be expressed purely as
applications of 5620, but they may have other downsides.
But the bottom line is that I think we should avoid focusing too much on
what can be done. If the community (IETF, IAB, outside) wants a
particular model, we should pick that and get it over with. With this in
mind, what would you Jim like to see as the end result?
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf