I also agree that the minutes are the most complete/official record we have.
Jari
On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:40 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I tend to agree with Pete - the minutes are more like an official
record, as well. BTW, the IESG Charter (RFC 3710) says:
"The IESG publishes a record of decisions from its meetings on the
Internet,..."
In any case, apart from this detail, I think the draft is good to go.
Brian
On 06/09/2013 10:20, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/5/13 2:45 PM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
looks good to me except that maybe using the IETF Announce list rather
than
IESG minutes as the publication of record
The only reason I went with the IESG minutes is because they do state
the "pending" actions too, as well as the completed ones, which the IETF
Announce list does not. For instance, the IESG minutes say things like:
"The document remains under discussion by the IESG in order to resolve
points raised by..."
"The document was approved by the IESG pending an RFC Editor Note to be
prepared by..."
"The document was deferred to the next teleconference by..."
The minutes also of course reflect all of the approvals. So they do seem
to more completely replace what that paragraph as talking about. And we
have archives of IESG minutes back to 1991; we've only got IETF Announce
back to 2004.
I'm not personally committed to going one way or the other. The minutes
just seemed to me the more complete record.
pr