--On Sunday, 14 January, 2007 09:31 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for
>> processing IETF LC comments is. Unless we do, it is not
>> obvious how we could evaluate whether the procedure has been
>> carried out properly or not.
>
> I think RFC 2026 is fairly clear and the issue is transparency
> - again, that is why the IESG now has a preference for IETF LC
> comments to go to the IETF list. That's a first step towards
> better tracking.
Brian,
Especially in conjunction with the piece of text that says
"retain the first part of the subject line", it is also a first
step to more noise on the IETF list. The IESG may well have
made the right decision here, but the recent explosion of the
usual IPR debate under the topic of draft-legg-xed-asd --
drowning out any possible substantive discussion on a document
for which some serious discussion is probably in order-- may
indicate that some further tuning is in order. I note that
proposals to send comments to the WG list and discuss them there
don't work because the document is an individual submission.
Convincing more people that the S/N ratio on the IETF list is
such that it isn't worth following would not be a good
consequence of this decision.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf