Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:29:37 -0400
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <E1Gb2rx-0006CC-5H@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I guess I should reply to the questions...
| 1) Do you support the proposal in section 2 of the draft to restore
| the AD and IESG's ability to suspend posting rights for longer than
| 30 days and to approve alternative methods of mailing list control
| as originally documented in RFC 2418?
The proposal, as a general thing, yes, the method it does it, no.
| 2) Do you support the proposal in section 3 to rescind RFC 3683?
Not at this time.
| 3) Do you have any concerns about approving one part of the draft
| without approving the other?
Yes, of course - the IESG can't (or shouldn't) do things like that,
the right way is to produce a new draft that contains the new proposal,
and have that last called, so the community can see and comment on the
new version. Too many more than editorial changes get made to docs as
part of the approval process already, aside from trivia like spelling
mistakes and out of date references (which should be the RFC editor's
job to fix anyway) the draft approved (or not) should be exactly the draft
last called, and not something different - if it has problems, have them
corrected them and issue a new last call.
| 4) Do you have any other comments on the document?
Since a whole new draft needs to be written anyway, more comments on
this one aren't worth anyone's time.
Lastly, in response to my last message, Brian said ...
| One bit of missing context is that in the General Area open meeting in
| Montreal, we did discuss the general issue and Jim Galvin took the action to
| follow up with a few interested parties. We don't have a draft yet, but the
| idea of the present draft was to fix a couple of immediate issues, not to be
| the end of the matter.
That's interesting, but irrelevant. Either this draft stands alone, and
should result in a workable situation, with only the changes in this draft,
or it is to be part of a set of changes, in which case it needs to wait until
the other changes are ready to proceed. Saying "we're going to do something
else, but take this change as a short term fix, even though it isn't really
adequate" simply isn't acceptable.
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf