--On Sunday, December 11, 2011 15:13 +0100 Julian Reschke
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de> wrote:
I think it would have been wise if the author actually had
sent a review request to the link relation mailing list, first
(see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.1>).
Julian,
Rather than seeing more of these procedural messages go back and
forth, let me agree with you about "wise" but note that there is
nothing in the procedures that prevents Mykyta from asking for
an IETF Last Call on the document first if he wants to. I would
suggest -- with some confidence even without actual certainty--
that, if the Link-Review list, or even the Designated Expert,
sent in a Last Call comment suggesting (and explaining why) that
this proposal was wonderful, or that it was deeply flawed, the
IESG would pay lots of attention to that. A review that would
justify one of those conclusions --or asking the IESG to send
the document back for revision and suggesting that the IETF list
see no more Last Calls until there had been adequate discussion
on the relevant mailing list -- would seem to me to be a more
useful use of energy than questioning the procedural path.
My one procedural comment to the IESG would be that approving
this before there is a proper agreement to put the necessary
bits in the registry would be inappropriate and, to use Julian's
term, unwise.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf