Eliot Lear wrote: > few if any specifications get to draft or full standard, > and no review of PS had ever been done along the timelines > specified in RFC 2026. Okay, let's nail this, I like to see 2195 and 3464 as DS, what exactly can I do ? > Numerous proposals were made within the working group. Bert's idea was nice, establish a timeout for PS, and after that time move the PS automatically to historic. Of course we'd need a long transitional period for the PS not covered by "decruft". > What I would like to know is what we could have done to > prevent this from happening. Don't try to replace the "three stage" process because it's in essence good. The detail where the IESG is supposed to do the whole work apparently needs fixing. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf