>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> --On Thursday, 08 February, 2007 03:34 -0500 Jari Arkko
John> <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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?
John> Sure. But my point in that area was obviously not clear.
John> Prior to the announcement of the Last Call, there was no
That sort of depends on what's going on here.
Is Jari's draft an internal procedure of the IESG sent out for
community review because the IESG believes it has an obligation to
seek input on its procedures and to document them?
If so, then a two week last call seems fine?
Alternatively, is this an IETF community process document that will
bind the IESG in the future unless it is updated by the community? If
so, then it should be a BCP and a four week last call.
My understanding was that RFC 2026 was normative here (although it
says basically nothing) and that the IESG was documenting its
procedures.
If the community believes that this topic is important enough that it
should be a community decision not an IESG decision, that seems
entirely fine to me. But then this should not be an informational
document.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf