-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
RJ Atkinson wrote:
...
BOTTOM LINE:
There seems to be clear consensus amongst folks outside
the IESG that (1) there is no current problem and (2)
no process change is warranted to make IESG notes mandatory
on non-IETF-track documents.
On 14 Sep 2009, at 10:00, Polk, William T. wrote:
IMHO, the current text places a responsibility on the IESG to deal
with
exceptional circumstances but fails to provide the tools to
execute that
responsibility. After 27 years in government, I have a lot of
experience
with assignment of
Hi Ran,
I have specific responses in-line, but I'll start with a summary of sorts
for less patient readers.
IMHO, the current text places a responsibility on the IESG to deal with
exceptional circumstances but fails to provide the tools to execute that
responsibility. After 27 years in
On 9/14/09 10:13 AM, RJ Atkinson r...@extremenetworks.com wrote:
On 14 Sep 2009, at 10:00, Polk, William T. wrote:
IMHO, the current text places a responsibility on the IESG to deal
with
exceptional circumstances but fails to provide the tools to
execute that
responsibility. After 27
Earlier, Tim Polk wrote (in part):
% And are we really helping anyone by not clarifying the
% relationship between the document and other RFCs?
%
% Shouldn't we provide this information as a
% service to the reader?
Tim,
I like you, but your reasoning on this topic comes
across as very confused
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org
For the IETF as an organization, I see no value beyond traditions in
staying with the RFC publication model. (The marketing value of using
the RFC series is IMHO
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:19:05AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
First, you lack empirical data to substantiate your assessment of the
perception.
Well, Wikipedia (which IMO is primarily useful as a repository for
finding
Olaf,
Let me suggest tuning this a bit, with the understanding that
what I'm about to suggest lies well within current procedures,
RFC 5620, etc.
--On Wednesday, September 09, 2009 09:11 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
...
But there is a nugget in the introduction of a last call: I
Hi Robert,
On 9/9/09 8:54 AM, Robert Elz k...@munnari.oz.au wrote:
Date:Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:17:50 -0400
From:Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu
Message-ID: tsl7hw89xk1@mit.edu
| Right; I think I made it fairly clear in my reply to John Klensin that
| I
On 9/9/09 11:09 AM, Robert Elz k...@munnari.oz.au wrote:
Date:Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:53:42 -0400
From:Polk, William T. william.p...@nist.gov
Message-ID: c6cd2ba6.1483b%tim.p...@nist.gov
| IMHO, the RFC series (as comprised by the four document streams) is not
On 2009-09-10 03:53, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com
The burden of proof rests on those ... who wish to change the
independent stream from a respected independent publishing channel to
something subservient to the Area Directors, a change which
On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Tim, I definitely agree with you that it should be the IETF community
that is last called.
Normally, the IESG judges IETF consensus.
However, if it makes the IAB more comfortable for the IAB chair to
do the
consensus call, that's fine with me.
Olaf == Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl writes:
Olaf On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Tim, I definitely agree with you that it should be the IETF community
that is last called. Normally, the IESG judges IETF consensus.
However, if it makes the IAB more comfortable
Date:Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:17:50 -0400
From:Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu
Message-ID: tsl7hw89xk1@mit.edu
| Right; I think I made it fairly clear in my reply to John Klensin that
| I disagreed fairly strongly with that and argued why I believed that
| the
Robert == Robert Elz k...@munnari.oz.au writes:
Robert Then note that this is exactly the same ralationship that
Robert the RFC editor should have with the IETF.
I disagree for reasons I have previously stated.
___
Ietf mailing list
Sam,
The burden of proof rests on those like you who wish to change the
independent stream from a respected independent publishing channel to
something subservient to the Area Directors, a change which seems
entirely gratuitous without any historically demonstrated need.
Donald
On Wed, Sep 9,
Date:Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:53:42 -0400
From:Polk, William T. william.p...@nist.gov
Message-ID: c6cd2ba6.1483b%tim.p...@nist.gov
| IMHO, the RFC series (as comprised by the four document streams) is not
| similar to IEEE Transactions on Networking or the NY Times. I
Robert Elz wrote:
| The better question is, if IEEE was distributing the output of the IETF in
| its series of standards publications
You're operating under the mistaken impression that the RFC series is
IETF standards - it isn't - some of he RFCs are IETF standards, others
are other IETF
From: Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com
The burden of proof rests on those ... who wish to change the
independent stream from a respected independent publishing channel to
something subservient to the Area Directors, a change which seems
entirely gratuitous without any
Hi,
As it has been pointed out here often, the RFC series is more than just the
document numbering scheme for IETF standards. However, if you attend a
marketing gathering, a random CS conference, a non-IETF standardization
meeting, or even the IETF plenary, a majority of people (probably a large
Stephan Wenger wrote:
This *perception* is important. And changing it means changing the
*perception* of a large number of people, for very little value except
honoring a 40 year old institution. That's not a value proposition I can
easily support.
If the IETF is *perceived* as the owner
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:19:05AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
First, you lack empirical data to substantiate your assessment of the
perception.
Well, Wikipedia (which IMO is primarily useful as a repository for
finding out what everyone knows) has this first sentence in its
description of the
Hi Dave,
I agree with your second observation. It may well be that the current RFC
editor model has not *yet* caused a pragmatic problem.
I stand to my first assessment, as originally formulated.
The main issue is: should the IETF be pro-active on these matters, or not.
For the IETF as an
From: Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org
For the IETF as an organization, I see no value beyond traditions in
staying with the RFC publication model. (The marketing value of using
the RFC series is IMHO contradicted by the lack of control of the IETF
over the RFC series).
If
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:19:05AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
First, you lack empirical data to substantiate your assessment of the
perception.
Well, Wikipedia
...
The fourth link from Google in response to, What is an RFC? says
...
So even if those pages go on
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:34:02AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
for example, the second and third. Based on that latter set, I could
claim that THE perception is that the RFC series is
I am at the best of times uneasy with universal quantifiers, and
certainly when talking about THE belief of
Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 11:20 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature
of IESG notes
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:34:02AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
for example, the second and third. Based on that latter set, I could
claim
On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Polk, William T. wrote:
I believe Sam's suggestion offers a good compromise position: if the
IESG
and RFC Editor do not come to an agreement, we should last call the
proposed
IESG Note and let the community determine whether (1) this is an
exceptional
case
--On Tuesday, September 08, 2009 16:36 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Polk, William T. wrote:
I believe Sam's suggestion offers a good compromise position:
if the IESG
and RFC Editor do not come to an agreement, we should last
call the proposed
In my opinion, 3932bis is internally inconsistent about IESG notes. This
document expressly directs the IESG to reserve IESG notes for exceptional
cases, but then leaves the decision on whether the note should be included
to the RFC Editor:
In exceptional cases, when the
Olaf,
I meant the IETF community. Since the note would exist to clarify the
relationship with documents developed by the IETF community, that seems the
right one to evaluate whether a note is needed.
As to who calls the consensus, that is a tricky one. How about the IAB
chair?
Tim
On
Tim, I definitely agree with you that it should be the IETF community
that is last called.
Normally, the IESG judges IETF consensus.
However, if it makes the IAB more comfortable for the IAB chair to do the
consensus call, that's fine with me. If we do that we'd need to make
it clear how this
Polk, William T. wrote:
I believe Sam's suggestion offers a good compromise position: if the IESG
and RFC Editor do not come to an agreement, we should last call the proposed
IESG Note and let the community determine whether (1) this is an exceptional
case meriting a note and (2) if the text
SM sm at resistor dot net wrote:
Some people interpret RFCs as Internet Standards even though the
document contains It does not specify an Internet standard of any
kind.
The document also says Request for Comments, which is not even
remotely true -- it represents the end of a long reviewing
From: Richard Barnes rbar...@bbn.com
What is clearly going on here is that our branding is out of sync with
the expectations of our customers. Whatever their historical meaning,
RFCs are now interpreted by the broad community as documents that have
the been reviewed and
...@estacado.net
Cc: i...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory
nature of IESG notes
--On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 09:55 +0200
pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
If the ISE / RSE is unreasonable, the IAB will slap
On Sep 2, 2009, at 7:20 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
We simply
require that, if the ISE receives input from the IESG requesting
specific changes to a document (specific changes including,
but not limited to, so-called IESG Notes) and the ISE and
authors decide to not incorporate those proposed
John,
we've had repeated examples
over the years of the IESG and/or individual ADs abusing the
independent submission process and/or the RFC Editor and zero
examples of the RFC Editor handling a request from the IESG
unreasonably or arbitrarily.
I don't want to open a discussion about who is
Hi Richard,
At 20:31 02-09-2009, Richard Barnes wrote:
Stated at more length:
What is clearly going on here is that our branding is out of sync
with the expectations of our customers. Whatever their historical
meaning, RFCs are now interpreted by the broad community as
documents that have
--On Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:55 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
...
In particular, when I have been an AD it has always been a
pleasure to work with the RFC Editor, and they have always
made exactly the right decisions. In my honest opinion of
course.
And I'd rather
John,
I suggest that it is not so much a conflict with the ongoing
work of an IETF WG, but a flat technical error.
And I would in general agree with you, but in this case the stuff was
already deployed very widely, and the purpose of the publication was to
document existing practice. I
From: pasi.ero...@nokia.com
Your suggestion would largely address my concerns related to the timely
appeal path.
I agree - this proposal:
if the ISE receives input from the IESG requesting specific changes to
a document ... and the ISE and authors decide to not
Richard Barnes wrote:
What is clearly going on here is that our branding is out of sync with
the expectations of our customers.
One of the historical items of note is that this supposed problem has been
present for about 20 years. In other words, nothing has changed.
For example, it
--On Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:48 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
John,
I suggest that it is not so much a conflict with the ongoing
work of an IETF WG, but a flat technical error.
And I would in general agree with you, but in this case the
stuff was already
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Adam Roacha...@nostrum.com wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
...
Remember also that in terms of the text being a recommendation, this is
not a change in practice. This is the practice we have had for more than
the last 15 years. If, for Independent Submissions,
Hi John -
I'm convinced we (the internet community) still need an true independent
submissions path. I'm no longer convinced that the path should or can lead
through the RFC editor.
In the far past, the RFC Editor was a true independent entity - part of the
internet community, participating
All,
I value the independence of the Independent Submission stream and
IRTF Stream from the IETF (including the IESG). Indeed, both the
RFC series and the acceptance of independent RFCs long pre-date
even the existence of the IETF.
I prefer that the IESG NOT have or assert the authority to
--On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 16:37 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Robert,
the IESG should not be making any kind of technical review of
independent submissions
Right, and we are not.
- the reason the review was even permitted ... was to allow
work that was
Russ, I think that it is absolutely critical that the IETF be able to
attach a note to an RFC and that this note not simply be a
recommendation.
We can believe all we want that the IETF stream is just one stream and
that all other streams are independent. However, the RFC process is
very tightly
--On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 09:55 +0200
pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
If the ISE / RSE is unreasonable, the IAB will slap the
editor and say stop doing that. There is no equivalent
process if we reverse the structure.
Yes, there is. If the IESG would
John == John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com writes:
John However, if your concern is really to make sure that there
John is a timely appeal path, I have a suggestion that might be
John acceptable to everyone without causing unfortunate
John side-effects. We simply require that, if
John, in principle, I would be delighted by this option if you made a few more
changes to make the RFC process more accountable:
1) Open up the rfc-editorial board so that it was selected by some sort of
nomcom/community process. That nomcom could of course draw from a broader
community
RFC 5620 calls for the appointment of an RFC Series Advisory Group, to
be appointed by the IAB, and a Independent Submissions Stream Editorial
Board (ISSEB for now), which serves at the pleasure of the ISE.
This was reviewed and approved by the community.
I presume with cognizance of the
Sam,
On 2009-09-03 05:53, Sam Hartman wrote:
...
1) Open up the rfc-editorial board so that it was selected by some sort of
nomcom/community process. That nomcom could of course draw from a broader
community than the IETF as a whole
I'm certainly in favour of transparency in the process
I'd like to keep this discussion focused on the question that Jari
asked. While changes to the Independent Stream can be discussed,
that seems like rfc4846bis, not this document ...
Several people have said that the RFC Editor already has the
authority we are discussing here. Sadly, it is
--On Wednesday, September 02, 2009 13:53 -0400 Sam Hartman
hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
John, in principle, I would be delighted by this option if
you made a few more changes to make the RFC process more
accountable:
1) Open up the rfc-editorial board so that it was selected by
some
Sam Hartman wrote:
Russ, I think that it is absolutely critical ...
Sam,
However, the IESG is not the IETF.
This is the single-most important statement in your note.
Absolutely critical is strong language, but is not warranted by 20 years of
experience or any other empirical basis.
From: Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net
The IESG is not, and must not be, the sole repository for responsible
decision-making in the IETF
Couldn't agree more. A division of powers, with checks and balances, are a
critical part of any organizational system, IMO.
Noel
Being a relatively short-term IETF participant, I lack the history that
many on this list have, but since Jari asked for comments, I'll provide
some.
Stated briefly, I agree with Steve Kent, Adam Roach, Ben Campbell, and
others that it makes sense to have IESG notes be mandatory for the ISE
In fact, I do not think the presence or absence of a note means what you
describe.
First, remember the Independent Submission do get reviewed. They do not
get IETF review. But they do get technical review by senior technical
participants in this community. This review can be thought of, as
Hi,
On 2009-8-31, at 18:34, Adam Roach wrote:
In particular, when a user accesses a document at a url of the form
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc.txt, there is going to be a strong
presumption on their part that the document was produced by the
IETF. In
the cases that this presumption is
On 2009-8-31, at 19:24, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
But the same could be said all our experimental and informational RFCs.
Should we insist that all experimental and informational RFC, even
from IETF WGs, carry big warnings THIS IS NOT AN IETF STANDARD.
FWIW, this was exactly what I proposed a
Adam,
So, to be clear, the question you have raised has to do with the
difference between:
The IESG may choose to add an IESG note to an Independent
Submission...
and:
The IESG may choose to request the addition of an IESG note to an
Independent Submission...
Right?
Yes.
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
If the ISE / RSE is unreasonable, the IAB will slap the editor and say
stop doing that. There is no equivalent process if we reverse the
structure.
Yes, there is. If the IESG would request/recommend a particularly bad
IESG note, this decision can be appealed just like
On Aug 31, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get
a sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional
IESG note is just a recommendation to the RFC Editor or (b)
something that is always applied to the
Date:Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:29:26 +0300
From:Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net
Message-ID: 4a9bd036.1000...@piuha.net
| And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get a
| sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional IESG
|
Robert,
the IESG should not be making any kind of technical review of
independent submissions
Right, and we are not.
- the reason the review was even permitted ... was to allow work that was
submitted independently
but which was directly in the same area as IETF work to be merged, and
all
Date:Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:37:31 +0300
From:Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net
Message-ID: 4a9d239b.7070...@piuha.net
| Right, and we are not.
That is very good to hear. I haven't been watching much of recent
IETF happenings (last few years) so I explicitly make no
I would like to get some further input from the community on this draft.
But first some background. This draft was brought to a second last call
in June because several IESG members felt uncomfortable with the IESG
notes being used only in exceptional circumstances. I asked Russ to
prepare
--On Monday, August 31, 2009 16:29 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I would like to get some further input from the community on
this draft.
...
And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like
to get a sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any
Following a request to look at this document, and with only a cursory look
at the archives, I'm confused.
The note is always intended to be included in the document itself, right?
Is this change designed to compel, as opposed to request, the RFC Editor to
include the note?
If the answer to
--On Monday, August 31, 2009 10:59 -0400 Brian Rosen
b...@brianrosen.net wrote:
Following a request to look at this document, and with only a
cursory look at the archives, I'm confused.
The note is always intended to be included in the document
itself, right?
Is this change designed to
John, Jari -
I was one of the folks expressing the concern Jari points to below,
and it's
a small facet of a larger worry I have about a potential (and I think
likely)
unintended consequence of the header/boilerplate changes. To capture
that
in this thread (with apologies for walking
I have a serious concern about the impact of this decision and the
perception of RFCs by the community that uses the output of the IETF.
The IETF process has a number of very strong safeguards in place to
ensure that the protocols we publish have certain levels of quality and
safety built in,
Before commenting on the question, I wish to comment slightly on the
exposition. While I understand that some IESG members were surprised
that the text brought to them treated IESG notes as a recommendation to
the RFC Editor, such surprise gap in historical information rather than
a change.
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Thus, I strongly prefer (a). I prefer that such notes be rare, and
that they remain recommendations to the ISE.
+1 to that,
S.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
If I understand your note properly, your primary concern is that folks
will think that Independent submission are IETF products.
This is a fair concern.
But the same could be said all our experimental and informational RFCs.
Should we insist that all experimental and informational RFC, even
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The documented rules
and practice has long been that with regard to Independent Submissions
the IESG notes are a request / recommendation to the RFC Editor (soon to
be ISE), not a statement of what will be included in the result.
...
Based on having seen a number
Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission stream.
We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is technical.
I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to make a judgment of whether
a technical note is, or is not appropriate to be included in a document.
Brian Rosen wrote:
Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission stream.
We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is technical.
It seems important to begin a discussion with true facts, and the
statement immediately above is false.
To quote Harald's
On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission
stream.
We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is
technical.
I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to make a judgment of
whether
a technical
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
And given that these are Independent Submissions, they aren't supposed
to be subject to community review.
Given this fact, why is there pushback on the idea that we would
prominently mark the documents to indicate that they have not been
subjected to community review?
--On Monday, August 31, 2009 10:30 -0700 Bob Braden
bra...@isi.edu wrote:
Your argument seems to me to be the latest version of the
30-year old discussion about whether all RFCs are standards.
...
Not quite 30 years, because it took us a while to start using
terms like standard, and even
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Wed try very hard to make it clear to folks that there is a difference
between standards track documents and non-standards track documents.
Independent Stream documents are not standards track documents.
And I agree that there is an issue of the community not
If every document needs this marking, then that is a matter for headers
and boilerplates. I can understand arguing about how we mark documents.
If our headers and boilerplate are not sufficient, then we should
renegotiate them. I personally think that they are about as good as we
can get.
--On Monday, August 31, 2009 13:20 -0500 Adam Roach
a...@nostrum.com wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
And given that these are Independent Submissions, they aren't
supposed to be subject to community review.
Given this fact, why is there pushback on the idea that we
would prominently mark
If we really feel that the current approach does not make non-standards
clear enough, then we should address that for all experimental or
informational documents. It is basically unrelated to the Independent
Stream issue.
With regard to documents that are alternatives to existing IETF work,
Adam Roach wrote:
While the presence of alternate streams of publication doesn't bother
me, I think they need to be automatically and prominently marked as
being something other than an IETF document.
In particular, when a user accesses a document at a url of the form
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
If every document needs this marking, ...
If this line of discussion needs to happen, it needs to happen on a separate
thread, because I believe it has nothing to do with the current text, proposal,
or concern.
As noted, it is opening a very old -- and I believe
Dave,
The current question is about IESG Notes. We ought to restrict
postings on this thread to that question.
Yes.
As always, before a draft is actually approved we appreciate getting all
kinds of feedback on it. Particularly if there's a serious problem
somewhere. Of course, when a Last
Jari Arkko wrote:
However, in this case: if you have a general comment on 3932bis,
please post to the Last Call thread. If you want to answer my specific
question about the optional/mandatory nature of the IESG note, please
respond to this thread.
So, to be clear, the question you have
+1 to Dave's suggestion below regarding the name of the draft, as well
as Joel's and John's responses to Jari's original question (i.e.,
retain existing practice regarding IESG notes).
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Dave CROCKERd...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Hi Jari,
At 06:29 31-08-2009, Jari Arkko wrote:
And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get
a sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional
IESG note is just a recommendation to the RFC Editor or (b)
something that is always applied to the published
--On Monday, August 31, 2009 16:29 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I would like to get some further input from the community on
this draft.
...
And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like
to get a sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any
On 2009-09-01 05:56, Ben Campbell wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission
stream.
We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is technical.
I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to
Joel,
I agree that IESG notes should be rare, but primarily because
independent stream submissions should be rare :-).
Long ago, when I served on the IAB, we grappled with this problem,
and failed to find a good solution. Despite what we say about RFC
status and origin markings, the public
On Aug 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-09-01 05:56, Ben Campbell wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission
stream.
We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is
On 2009-09-01 13:14, Ben Campbell wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-09-01 05:56, Ben Campbell wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission
stream.
We ask the IESG to review
On Aug 31, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[...]
+1 , including the IETF consensus call part.
I don't understand how IETF consensus is relevant to a non-IETF
document.
Can't the IETF can have a consensus that a non-IETF document
relates to
other IETF work in some way?
Making the IESG note mandatory, even if that required IETF agreement,
would essentially give the IETf veto over the Independent stream. The
IESG would simply propose a note so extreme that no author would accept
it on their document. Given that I have seen proposed notes almost that
bad in
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
