Russ,
On 2009-10-10 07:16, Russ Housley wrote:
Dave:
You have the motivations for rfc3932bis completely confused. The IESG
is not the source for the proposed changes to RFC 3932. RFC 3932 as it
stands works fine for the IESG, and the IESG continues to operate under
it. The Independent submission stream and IRTF stream do not like the
IESG notes that are mandated by RFC 3932.
Points well taken.
I think I'm going to challenge Jari's reading of rough consensus
in his message of Sept. 13:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58391.html
I think the discussions around the -09 and -10 drafts have actually
shown that there is no consensus to change from the current model,
reflected in the -08 draft, where the IESG merely *requests* the
editor to include an IESG note, and the IAB is involved only as
defined in RFC 4846.
Our general practice when there is no consensus to change a rule
is not to change it.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf