Tony, if I understood what you wrote, you are saying that the change we
need is really for the IESG to step back from reviewing documents before
they go to PS.
This task would be delegated to the ADs (and directorates).
This could even mean eliminating IETF LCs on documents going to PS?
The IESG as a committee would focus on movement from PS to DS/IS.
As PHB has pointed out, we *do* have a three-stage process today, but
the names aren't what 2026 says:
stage 1) ID-WG-xx, where XX > 10 or so.
stage 2) PS
stage 3) DS
Since stage 1 IDs get implemented, and often deployed, one finds that
one often can't even amend them easily if they have been 'stable' for
more than 6-8 months.
I think we have been trying for sometime to change things so that
my stage 1/2/3 corresponds to PS/DS/IS, but we haven't found a way to
have the IESG let go.
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ottawa(_dot_)on(_dot_)ca
http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf