Eliot Lear wrote:
Bernard,
I agree with EKR here. Failed consensus is failed consensus. RFC
2026 does not support the process that has been recommended here.
Perhaps Sam and Lisa can explain a bit more as to what process they
intend to use. It seems that Alexey is providing a forum for
discussion to improve the document, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Indeed, that is exactly what I was trying to say.
Lisa and Sam suggested to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I
thought it made sense.
I would imagine that both the IESG and the community will still get
their say, so what precisely is the problem?
Exactly. It is not like [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a closed
moderated mailing list.
This having been said, it seems to me that in order to address EKR's
(and perhaps others') concerns, the document will need substantial
work. I welcome efforts to improve that work. Where should that
happen? Must Sam do it alone?
If people can suggest a better place for work on this document, please
speak up now.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
