Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I'm hesitant to relaunch this thread, but there are a number of points > that incite me to comment. Since there's been a fair amount of > repetition, may I ask people only to chime in with new thoughts? ... > Joe Touch wrote: > ... > [re a mandatory section in all drafts] >> The goal of putting it in the template is to encourage it be addressed, >> rather than forgotten altogether. >> >> However, I'm not at all in favor of requirements to IDs that are added >> ad-hoc; until this actually makes it into an RFC as a formal >> requirement, it won't be in the word template I manage. > > I don't agree that all operational requirements need to be in process > RFCs as formal requirements. We need to give the IESG of the day some > freedom to adapt requirements to current conditions. I felt that the > requirement for IANA Considerations was a fine idea when it was > introduced, and certainly nothing that needed to be BCPized. Well, all other requirements for IDs and RFCs are described as formal requirements in RFC 2223. Your assertion goes to the whole issue of process, and how much leeway the IESG is given to develop - and then enforce - process changes without input from the IETF. I don't accept kings, even those on the IESG. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf