Hi Alexey,
At 08:43 08-06-10, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Which I think is a good thing. "Management items" are second class
citizens during IESG telechats.
The IESG could revert to the procedure used for the first
pre-evaluation I-D where DISCUSSes were filed.
I don't think this follows. The WG charter doesn't prohibit IETF LC.
If I recall correctly, the two-step approach was to get IESG
"buy-in". I'll use some text from Section 2.4 of
draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05 as an example for an IETF LC:
"The WG will consider whether those rewordings are appropriate."
Is this WG going to ask the IETF community whether it should or
should not consider whether the rewordings are appropriate? That's
like revisiting the WG Charter to determine what work the WG should
do. By the way, the IETF community can still comment on the
pre-evaluation document before it is processed by the IESG.
Not necessarily. IESG can do both.
The IESG cannot have it both ways. If it wants to formalize the
process used for the experiment, it should go all the way.
I am not sure I follow this, so please explain.
This is mere speculation. There are some well-known participants in
this WG who are highly familiar with the IETF Standards
Process. There are still some documents going into the hopper that
could end up being controversial. If the two-step experiment is
over-formalized, there is a risk that the disagreements might pave
the way for appeals. With the request, you have two determinations
of IETF consensus (used loosely). The first one doesn't pre-empt the
second one. But it could still be used in the arguments about
changes/non-changes.
In simple terms, as far as I know I don't know what will happen. But
I do know that the current approach is working.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
