The idea what we can ever proceed without a Last Call strikes me as a
fundamental anathema for the IETF.
agree entirely
Keith
Harald,
Tuesday, February 18, 2003, 7:30:51 AM, you wrote:
HTA> Given that a large portion of the IETF does not in fact subscribe to the
HTA> ietf-announce list, and that in some cases the IETF consensus is pretty
HTA> obvious (for instance when the decision is just paperwork following up on
HTA>
Date:Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:30:51 +0100
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Given that a large portion of the IETF does not in fact subscribe to the
| ietf-announce list,
That's irrelevant, anyone who cares can subscrib
Date:Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:45:13 -0500
From:Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I had been avoiding reading this set of messages, because I couldn't
really see discussions of what was required to get IANA to assign a
number in some (irreleva
> Absolutely. Otherwise, this discussion wouldn't be worth the
> trouble. But, if you are going to define "IETF Consensus" as
> "Publication as an RFC" then
Since I don't seem to be able to make this clear enough, once again, I
do not and have never intended "IETF Consensus", in the literal se
John,
> > and they meant the current 2434 definition
> Except, perhaps, for the documents that were written before 2434
> with a rather specific definition --discussed with the IESG at
> the time-- in mind. If 2434 modifies them, then 2434 can be
> updated and the update can update all of the
John,
> Thomas, not to be splitting hairs, but the intent --at least in
> SMTP-EXT (STD10/RFC1869), which was cited as an example-- was
> somewhat more than simple publication as an RFC (or, in your
> words, "a document that gets published as an RFC").
Agreed, now that I have gone and looked a
> > and they meant the current 2434 definition
>
> or they misread 2434 (or did not read 2434) and thought they knew
> what "IETF consensus" means
which means that it's not simply a matter of revising text, but
of asking again what was intended, and perhaps reopening the debate.
so perhaps we s
> and they meant the current 2434 definition
or they misread 2434 (or did not read 2434) and thought they knew
what "IETF consensus" means
Scott
> > I don't know what can be done a this point to change the terminology
> > in 2434. It's been in use for some 4 years now...
>
> It would seem quite simple for you to take the text of RFC-2434,
> edit the text appropriately to pick a more clear and accurate
> term, then run it past the community
>> It would seem quite simple for you to take the text of RFC-2434,
>> edit the text appropriately to pick a more clear and accurate
>> term, then run it past the community for BCP.
> Sure, this is easy. The harder part is that there are many many RFCs
> that use the "IETF Consensus" terminology in
> It would seem quite simple for you to take the text of RFC-2434,
> edit the text appropriately to pick a more clear and accurate
> term, then run it past the community for BCP.
Sure, this is easy. The harder part is that there are many many RFCs
that use the "IETF Consensus" terminology in their
On Wednesday, Jan 29, 2003, at 20:20 America/Montreal, Thomas Narten
wrote:
I don't know what can be done a this point to change the terminology
in 2434. It's been in use for some 4 years now...
It would seem quite simple for you to take the text of RFC-2434,
edit the text appropriately to pick
RJ Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday, Jan 23, 2003, at 17:54 America/Montreal, Bob Braden wrote:
> > I interpret "IETF consensus" as meaning that at least a Last
> > Call was conducted. To use any other interpretation seems to me to
> > be dishonest. I guess I am agreeing with K
14 matches
Mail list logo
