On Jun 25, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 6/25/11 8:16 AM, John Leslie wrote:
I quite agree that -6to4-to-historic doesn't satisfy such a statement;
and I don't believe the IESG process for Informational track documents
gives any assurance of "consensus of the IETF community".
I believe the IESG concluded that, although the document itself is
Informational, it is moving two RFCs to Historic status, which is a Standards
Action, and that we would use whatever procedures are appropriate to a
Standards Action to act on the document. This was the third point of my
DISCUSS comment and I believe the rest of the IESG agreed with me on this
point.
Draft 4 which went through wgcl and was submitted to the iesg had an intended
status of standards track, at the request of the iesg the reguested status was
changed to informational. The document is a standards action and thus must meet
the higher standard to pass iesg review regardless of it's intended status...
This is entirely consistent with historical precident as far as I can tell.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf