Re: Last Call: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Frank,
> Not publishing it at all is an alternative.
And this is what we should do, if the community feels that
way. However ...
> It would send an
> unmistakable message to wannabe-authors, that they should use the
> "independent" path, unless they're a friend of a friend of an AD.
>   
I personally feel fairly strongly that the individual
submission option is very useful for the IETF community --
along with the usual WG submissions and the independent
submissions via the RFC Editor. The reasons are described
in the draft, but relate to situations where non-WG proposals
are useful to the IETF community and require IETF and IESG
review.

By the way, the draft explicitly states that being friends with
an AD is NOT a reason for a draft to be sponsored. From what
I can see this is also the process that we follow. If not, please
complain!

Jari


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]