I have reviewed the discussion from the last call on this document.
My conclusion as the sponsoring AD is that we have consensus to move forward.
There was clearly a constituency who believed this is a good (albeit small)
step forward. A number of other people did not care so much; did not believe
there was either harm or benefit. I also saw a couple of opposing opinions,
though some of them were more about a desire to do something else than specific
objections about this proposal. I will be recommending that the IESG approve
the draft.
There were a number of smaller details raised in the discussion. But I did not
see an overwhelming consensus on any specific issue to make changes. But I will
ask Russ to take a look at the issue raised by Scott, whether he wants to add
an informative reference to RFC 5657.
Another issue that I wanted to highlight is the question of what kinds of discusses are
desirable/acceptable for documents that move from PS to IS. It is outside the scope of
Russ' document, but generated nevertheless some interest. The IESG has discussed this
matter and drafted some suggested guidelines. Look for a different thread on this list,
under "Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track".
Feedback on the guidelines would be appreciated.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf