On 27-May-26 09:25, Salz, Rich wrote:
> There's nothing in this draft that forces the IETF stream to apply it, because it explicitly says that each stream can override it. The point EKR is making, and which Russ asked about, is that this requires work on the streams to say “we don’t want this.” If the IETF stream doesn’t want to apply it, we must write an RFC. In the between-time, what happens?
The same thing that happens today if a stream dislikes some aspect of the RPC's current practice. All this is really doing is providing policy support for RPC practice. (I'm counting on Jean to point out discrepancies and overreach.) On 27-May-26 09:31, Stephen Farrell wrote: ...
There have been documents that were approved by the IAB and at the same time, underwent IETF LC. Something like that could be tried here. Not sure if I think that's a good or bad plan TBH, but absent such, I think I agree with Ekr that a thing like this kinda needs IETF consensus to be credible.
I agree. If there's anything that the largest stream objects to, we need to know. Eliot's correct that the RSAB process formally covers this, but we should expose this to the IETF in good time. On 27-May-26 10:05, Salz, Rich wrote: ...
bring it to the IETF dispatch mechanism and see what happens.
Tried that some years ago and nobody seemed interested. At least on the RSWG, there seems to be some interest. Brian -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
