Bernard, The way I interpret your statement is that you feel that replacement of the existing set of documents - possibly with a single new document - is preferred to writing one or more new documents with the intent to just "glue" the current set back together. Is that a correct interpretation? -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] --> On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba --> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:59 PM --> To: leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx --> Cc: iab@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin --> --> My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive --> as banning, it is --> very important to have clear, well documented procedures --> dictating the --> process and who is allowed to initiate the ban. Creation --> of more documents --> may not be the solution to this problem, particularly since the --> applicability and overlap of the existing documents is --> already somewhat --> unclear. --> --> --> >From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --> >To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> --> >CC: IAB <iab@xxxxxxxx>, "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@xxxxxxxx>, --> ietf@xxxxxxxx --> >Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin --> >Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500 --> > --> >Sam, --> > --> >One IAB member's perspective: no, the expectation is not --> >BCP upon BCP upon BCP. --> > --> >The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community commented --> >on published operational procedures should not be at odds with --> >our general or specific process documents, or else that seems --> >to suggest the process documents need updating. And we have --> >a community-defined process for that (which seems to result --> >in a BCP). --> > --> >Again -- that's just one person's perspective. --> > --> >Leslie. --> > --> >Sam Hartman wrote: --> >> --> >>So, a clarification request: --> >> --> >>Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement --> >>does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, John --> Klensin has --> >>made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are --> >>better handled by operational procedures made available --> for community --> >>comment than by BCP document. --> >> --> >>It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the --> >>processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all --> >>codified in BCP. --> >> --> >> --> >>I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would --> >>appreciate comments from its members. --> >> --> >>--Sam --> >> --> >> --> > --> --> --> --> _______________________________________________ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@xxxxxxxx --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf