Thanks for your note John. Let me also emphasize the need for these two drafts to be synchronized. Last calling draft-iesg at this time was made in part because we wanted to get the two in sync. I think we are more or less in sync but the remaining input should come from the community. As for the list to use for discussion -- sending mail to the iesg list only would indeed be one way. The discussion list we are on right now seems more suited, no? Thanks again for raising these questions. Jari John C Klensin kirjoitti: > Hi. > > I will get to substance in a separate note, and hope others will > also. In the interim, two procedural remarks... > > (1) This document and draft-klensin-rfc-independent-05.txt > describe two pieces of the "how a document that does not > originate in a WG may be reviewed and published" space. Each > contains some text that suggests that some documents are better > handled via the other path. The IAB has made a request for input > on the "independent" document and now we have a Last Call on > this one. > > As editor of the "rfc-independent" document, I am awaiting > instructions from the IAB as to what, if anything, to do next, > but suspect that the recommendation below would be better > applied to -06 rather than -05 of that document. > > I strongly encourage members of the community to review the two > documents side by side to ensure that everyone is satisfied that > they are consistent and that any questions about the overall > non-WG submission space is adequately covered by one or the > other of them. > > I also ask, and hope others will join me in asking, that the > IESG and IAB take explicit responsibility for coordinating and > ensuring consistency between these two documents (and, if > necessary, with draft-iab-rfc-editor). If they are not > consistent enough that actions based on them are predictable, I > fear we can look forward to some difficulties. It might even be > useful for the two groups to coordinate titles sufficiently that > someone looking for information will easily understand that the > two describe somewhat parallel paths and ways in which those > paths may or may not be alternatives to each other. > > > (2) This document is not the product of a working group or of > extended open discussion in the community. Version -00 was > posted around the time of the San Diego meeting and received > very little public discussion. The current version was posted > at the beginning of this month; there has been little discussion > of it either (at least on public lists -- as the > Acknowledgements suggest, I've had some input into it via > private discussions). The document does not even indicate a > mailing list on which it can be discussed. One presumes that > comments could have been sent to the IESG by those who happened > to read the I-Ds, but that is a one-way communications path. > > If the IESG intends this document to merely represent the > particular procedures they intend to follow within the range of > alternatives over which they believe they have discretion, then > it should probably be published as an ION, not an Informational > RFC. If they intend it to be definitive information for the > community, especially information that they expect to reference > as to why something is or is not possible or whether procedures > are being followed, a two-week Last Call is, IMO, inappropriate > and inconsistent with the spirit of the provisions in RFC 2026. > > john > > > > > --On Wednesday, 07 February, 2007 10:20 -0500 The IESG > <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering >> Steering Group (iesg) to consider the following document: >> >> - 'Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents ' >> <draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-01.txt> as an >> Informational RFC >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and >> solicits final comments on this action. Please send >> substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by >> 2007-02-21. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to >> iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf