Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous "no objection" or missing ballot responses.
I can understand the resource contention when reading drafts
brought to the IESG. I would not expect that more than 25% of
the IESG members have reviewed a draft (no average) when it is
up for ballot. But for _standards_action_, I would probably
appreciate if there was a minimum requirement of "yes" ballots
(definitely more than just one) based on independently formed
opinions, which requires some level of review of a document.
According to rfc2026:
4.2.2 Informational
An "Informational" specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or recommendation. [...]
4.1.1 Proposed Standard
[...]
A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
interest to be considered valuable. [...]
While I'm OK seeing just a single "yes" on the IESG ballot for
Informational, I feel quite uncomfortable with a single "yes"
for a standards action.
-Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf