Ted: The call for comments has resulted in some input, and the IESG plans to discuss that input at our meeting on Sunday. In fact there is also an experiment on mail list suspension that we will be discussing as well. The two experiments are listed on the web page: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/experiments.html Once this discussion is over, the future of IONs should be clear, and I will share with the whole IETF community the outcome of the experiment. If IONs are not part of the future, then we need to figure out the best home for each of the things that has been posted as part of the experiment: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ Russ At 03:01 PM 3/6/2008, 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