Orie Steele <[email protected]> wrote: >> Agreed, we need to remove that ambiguity. I also think that we might >> need an RFC3999 experiment here. >>
> I fear whatever you are referring to regarding RFC3999.
Sorry, that's RFC3933.
This specification permits and encourages the IESG to adopt and
institute "process experiments" by using the following procedure:
1. An I-D is written describing the proposed new or altered
procedure. A statement of the problem expected to be resolved is
desirable but not required (the intent is to keep the firm
requirements for such an experiment as lightweight as possible).
Similarly, specific experimental or evaluative criteria, although
highly desirable, are not required -- for some of the process
changes we anticipate, having the IESG reach a conclusion at the
end of the sunset period that the community generally believes
things to be better (or worse) will be both adequate and
sufficient. The I-D must state an explicit "sunset" timeout
typically, not to exceed one year after adoption.
To my mind, the process of reviewing multiple suffixes might fit into such a
thing. We write something down, ackwowledge that it might be perfect, and
then come back at the sunset time to re-evaluate. Would one year be long
enough? Maybe not.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
