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]

 



Jari Arkko wrote:

> please complain!

That was the complaint, the draft is from an IESG POV, and it
explains how to deal with confused authors claiming that a
single bit is enough to count to three or similar cases.

But it doesn't address the POV of authors who want to get an
evaluation of their I-D.  The first step is clear, figure out
the area, if that's unclear ask the General AD.

After that if the area has a "catchall crackpot WG" try to
get a review there, at some point in time ask the Chair(s)
to adopt the I-D.  Is that still correct ?

If the area has no catchall crackpot WG try to get reviews
on a related IETF or "other" list, at some point in time ask
one of the ADs.  

If that AD agrees to support it there will be a Last Call
or not - depending on the intended status, or the decision
of that AD to "last call" it anyway.

But what if the AD doesn't like it ?  Not all drafts try to
introduce ternary bits.  Apparently ADs are forced to vote
[Yes] (at least initially) if they "sponsor" a document.

What if they don't like it, but the authors still insist on
an evaluation ?  Can they appeal then ?  What if the AD 
does not like it personally, but admits that it's not as 
bad as the famous ternary bits ?

Frank



_______________________________________________

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]