Hiya,
This proposal only kicks in (as an option) after the WG have
done their job, however they choose to do that (within the
IETF process).
Later on, it might be a fine idea to try extend the fast-track
concept so that a WG has a structured way do similar things
but IMO that'd be better done after we get some experience
with the experiment at the point where the WG get broader IETF
review and hand stuff over to the IESG.
So what you're asking about is not within the scope of this
particular 3933 experiment.
Cheers,
Stephen.
On 12/05/2012 02:43 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I think it is great idea, I hope it does not die, we need fast-tracks,
without delays, however, giving a fixed time limit for WG feedback and
WG discussion is important (suggested 6 months), because discussions
about running code should not be ignored. The draft seems to not give
chance to WG to make a formal decision on its adopted work, why you
put the chair to decide for WG of taking the fast track?
AB
----
Hi all,
I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
that's fine, it can die.
The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't
be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no
"official" status whatsoever.
Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome.
Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this
list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible,
this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list.
Regards,
Stephen.
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft