Re: I-D ACTION:draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-10.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



John:

Speaking pragmatically, I believe that creating a binding
inter-stream appeal process probably requires reopening both
4846 and 4844 and, given many of  the comments on the IETF list
about the previous drafts, would lead to our having to recycle
the discussion of the appropriateness of the role of the
multiple-stream model and whether the IESG gets a "first among
equals" role or better.  I don't believe that repeating that
discussion yet again would serve the community well and that is
another big argument for the advisory approach.

I think everyone agree that the IAB has an oversight role here. Many of the people on this list have already advocated the need for an appeals process to resolve disagreements about the content of notes suggested by the IESG. This is not about the content of the document itself. If it were, then I could understand your concern, but it is only about the content of the note.

Russ
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]