Brian E Carpenter wrote: > The current situation (where STD 1 was last updated in July 2004) > is clearly misleading for outsiders. Yes, for some time I thought that it's caused by what also caused the "pending errata" congestion, or that they use another trigger for a new STD 1 - a fresh RFC ??00 with no changes is pointless. > My personal preference is clean termination, but obviously that > should be a consensus question. Anything that's more obvious than "align with reality", if there was an info about what they intend I missed it (back in 2004). >> 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..." Strike "willing". The "unwilling" scenario has to be a "decision": E.g. if the proponent didn't submit a draft "writeup" questionnaire, or if the recommendation is nonsense. Otherwise, if it's just the AD "unwilling" to accept a recommendation or forward it to the IESG, this has to be an appealable decision. Proponents forced to find a "willing" AD is horrible. >> 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. If that boils down to "proponents either need to find a 'willing' AD or submit a (draft) 'writeup' for their recommendation" it is okay for drafts and RFCs written by somebody else. If proponents prepare a 'writeup' normal cases of unwillingness (no time to read the memo, and no idea what it's about) shouldn't enter the picture. > It's only when an AD is willing to actively push a document that > it will get the IESG's attention. When a "Pubreq" token exists something will happen, tools like the "tracker exceptions" help. With the RFC 2026 rules "an individual" can trigger the standards action, with your rules this could depend on a "willing" AD. If "an individual" is "the author" there would a potential conflict of interests, an author trying to draft a 'writeup' is biased. In that case "an individual" (not limited to a "willing AD") is needed, authors can't sponsor their own documents, the IETF is no Wiki... :-) > BTW this does work When I tested it I hit an AD who wasn't convinced that what the I-D talks about still exists. The "find a willing AD" procedure is very embarrassing. It's okay if they don't like an I-D, or are unwilling to be forced to vote "YES" later, but that shouldn't be the problem of the author. The "an individual" (neither author nor willing AD) loophole in RFC 2026 is a good compromise, please don't close it. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf