Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Marshall Eubanks a écrit : >> >> On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> >>> Marshall Eubanks a écrit : >>>> >>>> Emergencies. An emergency is defined as "there is a problem with the >>>> TLP that is likely to be abused". In these cases, the trust can >>>> publish >>>> a modified text for a 2 week review period, then modify the TLP. The >>>> Trust must explain the reason for the change. >>> >>> I have a hard time thinking of an emergency that can be fixed by a >>> timely change in the TLP which would likely require a lot of heavy legal >>> advice and related work and coordination. Changes in policies may have >>> important impacts over time that would probably require enough time to >>> review. To me, the TLP should be a pretty stable document. >>> >>> However, I might think of an emergency for a immediate legal action, but >>> not sure about an emergency change in the TLP. >>> >>> I guess I need to be educated on the use case for the emergency track. >>> >> >> My personal feeling is that we won't really know until we have had a >> few, which hopefully will take >> a very long time. But, it seems worthwhile to have some sort of "in case >> of emergency, break glass" >> procedure. > > the other side of the argument is being: the TLP is so central and > important that if one wants to change it, it has to go through a > somewhat "not fast" concensus-based process. i.e. this is a stable > document and we don't want to change it over night. This is another reason why the current approach of getting IETF consensus on an RFC and publishing should be preferred. Compare RFC 5377. It is a well defined process, and unless there is consensus that the approach is broken I believe we should use the normal process. Can we start and agree on a problem statement before finding solutions? /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf