Ted, Speaking for myself here but I suspect that other ADs are in the same boat ... I'm keen to make sure my Discusses are within the parameters of the discuss criteria ION regardless of the official status of this document. Agree we need to sort out what we the end result is of several experiments. I believe Russ is working to get that some IESG agenda time. Cullen On Mar 6, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: > The call for comments on IONs seems to have ended without > clarifying the effect of the end of the experiment on the standing > of current IONs. For most of them, I honestly don't think the > standing is much of an issue. But for the "discuss criteria" ION, > I believe it is a serious issue. At this point, it is difficult to > know > whether the discuss criteria document is in force or not, and the > extent to which the issuing body is bound by it. > > I think this is a very bad thing. > > I call on Russ to restore this document to its original status as > an Internet Draft and to process it as a BCP. IESG DISCUSSes are > a very serious part of our process at this point. Having a community > agreed standard to which IESG members could be held was always a > better > path than than a document approved only by the IESG. Now that > the ION experiment is over and the status of its document is in > limbo, things are even worse. > > The current document is here: > > http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-discuss-criteria.html > > for those readers playing the home game. > > Ted Hardie > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf