--On Thursday, 08 February, 2007 10:19 -0500 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Sam, I think we pretty much agree, and that is why my initial
note wasn't much more aggressive. But it raises the issue that
others have raised: if this meets the criteria for "IETF
documenting its procedures" and, as you have described it above,
"informational", then why not publish it as an ION given that
series was designed for just those sorts of things? Please
take that as a question, not a position, but it is a very
serious one.
More generally, and independent of this particular document, it
seems to me that, with IONs in the mix, publishing something
that is informational about IESG procedures requires some
explanation. Procedural BCPs do not, IONs do not, but
informational documents of this variety have now become sort of
an odd case. And, IMO, if something that could reasonably be
published as an ION is proposed for publication as an Info RFC
instead, then that ought to imply a decision that serious
community discussion is in order, not just comments on a
collection of IESG decisions.
Put differently, I think the existence of IONs implicitly raises
the bar on Info publication of procedural docs, especially ones
that are just IESG statements of IESG procedures.
I think that is essentially the same question that Spencer and
others have raised.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf