--On Friday, January 21, 2022 14:25 +0000 Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On January 21, 2022 at 2:24:45 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: > > > Hi! > >> just pointing out that this is not something the IESG >> initiated. As the email says, the request came from the >> community. > > Correct. > > As the shepherding AD... The request was sent to the RTG > ADs. The three of us talked about it, and I then consulted > with the idr WG where there was no opposition to this action. > idr (Inter-Domain Routing) is not chartered with working on > EGP, but it is the closest we have to a group that would be > interested and knowledgeable about it. Alvaro (and Lars), IMO, the above should be reflected in the proposed statement of why this is being proposed/done. If nothing else, and reflecting on your note sent moments earlier, if someone comes back a few years from now and wants to know how or why this was done, that is important information. More broadly (and as explained in probably too much detail in a note I sent last night), I think that either the IETF (or, better, the RFC Editor Function as Brian suggested) should initiate a project to clean out those old specs(perhaps along the lines of the RFC 4450 one for old Proposed Standards) and consider this as part of that -or- the statement should include an explanation of why the IESG and the community should be spending time on this particular spec at this particular time. In particular "it is causing harm and/or confusion because..." would be a very helpful statement but I am guessing that, in this case, there is no such harm or risk. thanks, john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
