Russ, On 2009-10-10 07:16, Russ Housley wrote: > Dave: > > You have the motivations for rfc3932bis completely confused. The IESG > is not the source for the proposed changes to RFC 3932. RFC 3932 as it > stands works fine for the IESG, and the IESG continues to operate under > it. The Independent submission stream and IRTF stream do not like the > IESG notes that are mandated by RFC 3932.
Points well taken. I think I'm going to challenge Jari's reading of rough consensus in his message of Sept. 13: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg58391.html I think the discussions around the -09 and -10 drafts have actually shown that there is no consensus to change from the current model, reflected in the -08 draft, where the IESG merely *requests* the editor to include an IESG note, and the IAB is involved only as defined in RFC 4846. Our general practice when there is no consensus to change a rule is not to change it. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
