Ted: Not oall of the IONs were "approved" for posting by the IESG. There is one from the IAOC, for example. That was the point of "figure out what to do." Russ At 04:01 PM 3/6/2008, Ted Hardie wrote: >At 12:42 PM -0800 3/6/08, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >Ted, > > > >Firstly, it's not for me to prejudge the IESG's conclusions > >about IONs, but I would suggest that any ION issued by the > >IESG implicitly carries the same status as any other IESG > >statement, unless rescinded, so I don't quite share your concern. > >I went and looked at RFC 4693 before I posted my first note. >It says: > > If the IESG decides that the feedback warrants terminating the > series, the repository will be closed for new documents, and the > existing ION documents will be returned to having the same status as > any other Web page or file on the IETF servers -- this situation will > closely resemble the situation before the experiment started. > >The status this document had prior to being approved >as an ION was "Internet draft", which means it had >no formal status at all and was followed by the IESG >as a matter of lore. > > > >However, the deeper question is whether the "discuss criteria" > >*should* be promoted to BCP (which effectively binds future > >IESGs as well as the current IESG). That is worth some > >discussion. My experience on both sides of the fence is that > >having the criteria spelled out has been extremely valuable > >to authors, WGs, reviewers and the IESG itself. I'm a bit less > >certain whether they should be made binding. Flexibility > >leaves space for applying common sense. > >There is no reason for a community-agreed document not to >have flexibility. There are strong reasons to make this a community >agreed document. Making it something that the community >can hold the IESG to, rather than something the IESG can modify >by issuing an updated ION, is a critical part of this. > > Ted Hardie > > > > > Brian > > > >On 2008-03-07 09:01, 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 > >> _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf