--On Saturday, 09 August, 2008 20:52 +0200 "Bert Wijnen
\\(IETF\\)" <bertietf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John and Dave,
>
> I think that both of you (and some others) arwe looking at the
> ID_Checklist
> too much as if it is part of our (rigid) process. Our
> processes aredescribed
> in formally approved BCP documents.
>
> The ID-Checklist is intended (or at least that is how it
> started, and as far
> as I am concerned that is still the intention) to help in a
> few areas:
Bert,
We are in complete and utter agreement with each other about the
appropriate role of the ID_Checklist. For better or worse, the
IESG apparently does not agree, as evidenced most recently in
their response to my appeal about turning a suggestion from the
original version of the Checklist into a firm rule without
having that explicitly confirmed by the community.
We also agree that revising the Checklist into a document that
is suitable for use as part of a package of firm rules is a
rather different job than updating it while being consistent
with its original purpose.
So I withdraw my suggestion and comments but strongly suggest
that you make sure that your intentions for the document and
those of the IESG are in synch before proceeding much further.
regards,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf