Subject: Re: IESG response and questions to the normative reference experiment (draft-klensin-norm-ref-01.txt)

From: Jefsey_Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:14:39 +0200

On 12:10 04/09/2006, Brian E Carpenter said:
>>Looking at the current RFC editor queue, I count 25 IETF documents in
>>MISSREF*R state. A good number of been waiting for roughly a year, one
>>document for nearly 3.
>
>Let's be clear that the experiment wouldn't automatically release
>all of those 25 documents.  It would only allow ones to be released
>that refer (normatively) to
>   "o  Internet-Drafts of Standards Track documents for which IESG review
>       has been completed and Protocol Action or Document Action notices
>       have been issued."

Dear Brian,
I do not want to keep harping on the same topic. However, any 
specific reason why "Standar Track" only, and not BCP?. The 
ltru-matching example, you created and I quoted as an existing 
candidate, belongs to a BCP? I personally see no difference?

Or is it that BCP should be quoted by their own number and not by 
their RFC number, the reason why BCP Drafts are enforced as soon as 
approved by the IESG? I support that. I must say I start being 
confused by all these options to RFC 2026 simplicity.

I would also suggest to clarify the issue in having the text say "for 
which IESG review and appeal period have been completed ..." to 
coform with RFC 2026 and not to create a conflict with the duties of 
the RFC Editor (it is to make sure that texts are not harmful: they 
translated this in putting on Hold appealed documents).

Rather than overriding it with exeception, could we not consider this 
as an incitement at responding appeals in reasonable delays. This 
would avoid the question of and the need for suspensive appeals?

What used to work in the IETF was is not that it was decentralised 
and worked on general rought consensus?
jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf