On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote:
> > Using the individual submissions track as a way to circumvent working > group > > process when there is an actual IETF JSON working group seems completely > > wrong to me. > > No one is circumventing anything. The JSON working group is not > chartered to deal with this or other documents like it, and we won't > be rechartering it to do so any time soon. And remember that any time > I'm sponsoring a document as AD, part of what I'm doing is what > working group chairs do in a working group: judging rough consensus on > the document's content and the issues that concern whether it's > intended status is appropriate. If you (and/or others) can show that > there are solid reasons that this should not be a Proposed Standard, > or if I do not see rough consensus to publish it, I will not bring it > to the rest of the IESG. > > I would add that CBOR has already seen enough interest and feedback that I believe it would pass a call for adoption in APPSAWG, and be processed there onto the standards track. That would make Barry's job quite a bit easier, since it would then be our job to host the discussion and record consensus in that context. It would also get a shorter IETF Last Call. Instead, it's going what is for all intents and purposes a tougher route. I'm not suggesting we derail its progress to do it the other way, but it does suggest to me that the route it's following is hardly a shortcut or bypass of some kind. -MSK
