Hi Tony, OK to everything you said below. Returning to what you wrote last week:
"Assuming that you want to go down the IRSG document path, we can issue a last call on these documents. This should give two weeks for others to comment. If there are no comments, we can do a consensus check (another week) and then pass to the IRSG." So, let's do that then (i.e., take the RFC5743 approach). But, who issues the two-week last call? You, me, or someone else? Thanks - Fred [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Li [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:25 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Robin Whittle; RRG > Subject: Re: [rrg] Pumping IRON > > > On Aug 9, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > Hi Fred, > > > So, the only downside I see with going with RFC5743 is if we would > > have some avenue to go straight to standards track on the first > > iteration. I think at one time it was possible to take an > > independent submission to standards track via "AD sponsorship", so > > if that is still true we could get some IESG AD to stand up and > > sponsor the document we could ask them to pursue Proposed Standard > > right away. But, I don't have a good sense of how much trouble this > > would be. Does anyone know? > > > > WG chairs - please let me know if I have mis-spoken in any > > way. > > > Sounds right to me, tho I didn't go through the nitty gritty details. > > Going to proposed standard without an IETF WG is a VERY unlikely path to > success. While it is > possible, it would have to be something that is so uniquely controversial and > necessary that an AD > would be willing to put their reputation on the line. > > Regardless, the sensible approaches here are: a) go the IRTF route, b) go the > individual submission > route and then if standardization seems warranted, go down the IETF WG path. > > Regards, > Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
