Timo is hitting a messy area for us.  I agree with John and Brian that you are in difficult waters.  It's even worse than the last time because of how we have organized ourselves.  The test is roughly this (IMHO):

 * If you are effecting how we publish our work by changing the
   vehicle, which is currently an RFC, that is the provenance of the
   RSWG.  That includes how the RPC handles AUTH48.  In my view, the
   streams can have their own policies about what they think is a major
   change, but the only lever for the RPC really is whether a
   representative of that stream (like an AD or the ISE or the IRTF
   chair, for instance) has to approve publication.  Currently, my
   understanding is that ADs don't approve unless asked.
 * If you want to change how we define a standard and how it evolves
   *within the existing publication framework* (e.g., RFCs), and this
   includes labeling and such, that to me at least is a matter for the
   IETF because only the IETF produces standards.

I think it's a fine thing to revisit All of This from time to time.  Our organization shouldn't remain static.

Eliot

Attachment: OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-- 
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to