At 4:34 PM -0400 6/23/06, Robert Sayre wrote:
It is surely appropriate for IETF members to suggest an alternate status for the document, no matter what the IESG eventually decides.
That's one view, and an unfortunately common one. The view I prefer is "follow RFC 2026 because no one is going to remember the logic for not following it after the RFC is published." Yes, I'm a bit of a priss about these things...
In this case, an appeal to "the rules" was made, but RFC 2026 does not place limits on the sort of feedback the community may give.
Correct. It is up to the IESG to decide on a case-by-case basis if there was adequate discussion.
I don't feel the community has control of this document, and that bothers me.
Once something is an RFC, the "community" has "control" in that an effort can be made to obsolete a document with a new one, or extend a document with a new one. That is weak control because it takes a lot of effort and elapsed time, and it might not succeed. Fortunately, anyone can form a "community" if they feel like doing the work; they might be listened to. (This in contrast with other standards bodies that do not allow revisions by random developers or other interested parties.)
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
