Brian E Carpenter wrote: > the question is whether people are interested enough to comment... ...and maybe also how interested the author is to answer comments: <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/27581/match=2026> [RFC 3700] You still propose to kill STD 1 claiming that everybody is online today. What with CDs containing all RFCs, or similar collections for offline use ? [standards action] Removing the right to initiate a "standards actions" from the community is a bad idea. That's not "aligning with reality", I tested it, it works like a charme, the RFC in question meanwhile got its number. [Draft Standard] "Deployable Standard" for DS is nice. [conflicts] Does "persons appointed to IETF roles" include document editors and expert reviewers ? I think Chairs can act as buffer between angry folks and editors, and so hope it does NOT include editors. Have you integrated your conflict draft into this draft ? It could be better to keep them apart. While you are at it you could adopt John's proposal to replace "two months" by "six weeks" for appeals. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf