--On Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 17:21 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John, > >> Or, perhaps I'm completely wrong about the sense of the >> community. But I would suggest and ask that, before any more >> of these documents are pushed or Last Called, you try to >> determine the degree to which the community just does not >> want to deal with these issues for a while. > > As said in my note sent on 2006-08-10, my conclusion after > Montreal > was essentially the same as yours: > >> 1.1. There is insufficient pressure and energy in the >> community to justify the effort of reaching consensus on >> formal changes to the standards process at this time. And that was why I was a bit surprised to see you suggesting finding an AD to sponsor, and presumably Last Call, your draft. > My intention is to use the current list discussion to confirm > or refute this conclusion. Good. If we disagree, it is only on what a "formal change" constitutes. I would consider an in-depth summary of what is wrong with 2026 (at least on any basis other than a personal informational opinion piece) and any attempt to replace 2026 with a version that reflects current practice to be such formal changes, if only because they would require almost the same level of effort in review and consensus-finding as actually changing the process. But some might disagree. thanks, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
