On 2008-01-18 23:20, Frank Ellermann wrote: > 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 ? Well, mosts CDs seem to have index pages of some kind - something like http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html would do it (and that is always up to date, whereas STD1 is normally out of date). > > [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. I didn't intend that at all. Where do you find that? > > [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. We can debate the details I guess - but don't you think there should be an appeal path if an IANA-considerations expert reviewer makes a dubious decision? Document editors aren't appointed by the IESG, so wouldn't be covered by my language. > > Have you integrated your conflict draft into this draft ? No. There was insignificant community interest in that so I've dropped it. > 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. That would be a real change rather than an alignment with current practice. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf