As a procedural matter, I agree with Scott and John. This document should not be considered for advancement at this time nor until such time as there is real evidence of widespread consensus.
As a substantive issue, renaming PS and DS to Preliminary and Deplyable strikes me as a terrible idea. Whatever the merits of the current names, they are the ones we have and changing them now will only create confusion. Deployable is a particularly bad choice since PSs are regularly deployed. -Ekr At Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:07:33 -0500, John C Klensin wrote: > > > > --On Monday, 21 January, 2008 16:50 -0500 "Scott O. Bradner" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > sorry - it does not make any sense at all to last call this > > document > > > > it has had no meaningful discussion - we should not be > > updating our core process documents this flippantly > > FWIW, while I don't see anything flippant in either the author's > intentions or in the Last Call announcement, I have to agree > with Scott. Only a couple of people commented on this prior to > the Last Call announcement. I fear that confirms my hypothesis > that the community has gotten burned out on process work and > that it is going to be very hard to get meaningful consensus on > changes across the community (rather than among those who get > excited about process issues). > > Even ignoring the issue of how meaningful consensus is to be > determined, my recollection is that some of the few comments > pointed out problems and suggested changes which the author > agreed to make. That would suggest that we should at least see > a revision (to -03) that reflects the author's latest thinking > before a Last Call is announced. > > Significant changes to 2026 --even changes that the author > believes are just updates to reflect current practice-- are > important enough to justify, e.g., a plenary presentation and > discussion in Philadelphia. We've got too much experience > making changes to process documents that seemed reasonable, did > not get careful and extensive review, and that turned out to > have significant unintended consequences. A conclusion that the > document isn't important enough to justify plenary discussion or > the equivalent is, for me, a conclusion that we don't need it > right now. > > john > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
