Frank, Thanks for the comments. On 2008-01-19 21:58, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> 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 always up to date, whereas STD1 is normally out of date). > > IMO they should resume to publish ??00 RFCs as STD 1 at least when > there is a new or updated STD. If they really hate it there should > be a "last" STD 1 deprecating itself. Some tools (not only offline > collections with an old snapshot) and users still expect that STD 1 > exists, whatever 2026bis says, a last STD 1 also needs to be clear. Yes, I agree that *either* we should cleanly terminate the STD 1 mechanism *or* we should implement it as originally documented. The current situation (where STD 1 was last updated in July 2004) is clearly misleading for outsiders. My personal preference is clean termination, but obviously that should be a consensus question. > >>> 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? > > 3.14 == old == > | or, in the case of a specification not associated with a Working > | Group, a recommendation by an individual to the IESG. > 3.14 == new == > | or, in the case of a specification not associated with a Working > | Group, an agreement by an Area Director to recommend a > | specification to the IESG. > > You move the "action" right from the community to IESG members. Oh, OK, I need to put in more words to say something like "a recommendation by an individual to an Area Director willing to sponsor the specification..." I didin't mean to remove the individual from the process. > > I also hated it when you (or Jari ?) did in essence the same with > the right to create a "Pubreq" for non-WG documents. http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-ad-sponsoring.html is intended to make it *easier* for individuals by actually clarifying the procedure - we had lots of experience that just sending a draft to the IESG collectively really didn't work. It's only when an AD is willing to actively push a document that it will get the IESG's attention. (And BTW this does work - just look at the number of non-WG drafts that make it onto the IESG agenda.) Brian > >> don't you think there should be an appeal path if an IANA- >> considerations expert reviewer makes a dubious decision? > > Yes, my two examples were for both sides, there's no WG Chair who > could "protect" expert reviewers... > >> Document editors aren't appointed by the IESG, so wouldn't be >> covered by my language. > > ...good, I missed "by the IESG" after "appointed to IETF roles". > > Frank > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf