>>>>> "Dave" == Dave CROCKER <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Dave> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 02:18:21PM -0000, John Levine
>> <johnl@xxxxxxxx> wrote
>>> All of these questions have come up before on the various
>>> lists where this draft was developed, but I suppose it's worth
>>> going through
>> That's the point of an IETF-Wide Last Call. I'm not a
>> participant in the ASRG.
Dave> Stephane,
Dave> Your view of the role of IETF Last Call does not match my
Dave> reading of RFC 2418, "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Dave> Procedure":
It seems quite clear to me that RFC 2418 does not apply at all to the
output of an RG. From a process and consensus building standpoint,
this last call needs to be treated the same as an individual
submission, not WG output. RGs are not required to maintain the level
of openness, minutes, etc that WGs do. Thus, they don't get the
presumption of consensus that a WG does and the comments in 2418 about
last calls do not apply. Even if a particular RG is open, it's still
not a WG; just as we would expect input from an external organization
to be treated through the individual process regardless of the
openness of that organization, we should do the same for IRTF output.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf