Have a look at Appendix F. I plan to fill out Section 10 once we know for
sure which changes have consensus rather than a few points that might still
be fluid.
-MSK
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015, 08:21 Abdussalam Baryun
<abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hi Murray,
Sorry that I maybe not following the points, may be they were on the list,
but the draft needs to have the points of changes. I think section 10 is
important, so I can know the changes to RFC7437, this section is already
known by the authors but I am not sure why still it is not drafted. For the
it is important so I can know the improvements to the procedure in abstract
(even the introduction refers to this section 10). Therefore, the draft is
not clear and I cannot decide, and it may take a lot of time of the readers
to understand without knowing the improvements/changes.
Thanks,
AB
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
<superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Some months ago I started the work of editing a revision to the NomCom
procedures (RFC7437bis). We made progress on some points, but seem to have
stalled on revising the requirements for qualifying to serve on NomCom.
The draft I have recently expired. Is there any interest in taking
another run at this now? Alternatively, is it worth publishing what we did
accomplish, and leaving that one point for a later attempt?
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis/
-MSK