On 2007-02-26 07:51, Eliot Lear wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
My strong preference as an individual is to approve this document as
is. I think there's a good split between RFC 3967 and this document.
RFC 3967 will cover informational documents; this document will cover
standards track.
I'm not in principle opposed to having one document but I am opposed
to the delay it would introduce.
It's not just one more document. We're working on at least a dozen,
starting with RFC 2026, going on to various "IOPs", the boiler plate
documents, IESG sponsorship documents, IRTF rules, and more. One has to
be an Internet lawyer to understand the system.
Which is why we have the Tao and
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-procdocs.html
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf