On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:43:32 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: > s much as we might like the handy "default yes"/"default no" > terminology, the reality is that individual submissions for the > standards track have varying levels of support and interest > when they reach the point of IETF Last Call. Defaulting all > proposals to "no" that have no working group behind them > collapses that too far, in my personal opinion. If one believes that the IETF has no problem with publishing useless, wasteful specifications and no problem with excessive concentration of authority and responsibility in the IESG, then by all means, the model you, Harald and Sam espouse should remain. Unfortunately, the IETF community has repeatedly, and even formally, expressed concern about both of these issues, so I was merely noting a pretty straightforward means of dealing with both of them, in regards individual submissions seeking IETF approval. Rather than be mystical assessors of vague sources of support, the IESG needs to make major decisions more transparent. With respect to approval of IETF documents, that is one of the reasons for Last Call. And as I noted, it used to be used for that quite pointedly. The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be demonstrated ON THE RECORD. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf