Tony Hain <alh-ietf@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Did you miss James Polk's comment yesterday? The IESG is already changing > their ways!! They now require 2 independent implementations for a personal > I-D to become a WG draft. Though I'd rather steer clear of this fray, I must question this. I'm quite certain the IESG doesn't have such a blanket policy. The reported incident _may_ be accurate, but such a requirement would have come from the WG Chair, not the responsible AD, least of all some other AD. I'd be very surprised if this incident turns out to be anything more than a WGC (who may _also_ be an AD) requiring implementation reports for a single I-D proposed for adoption. I'd also be surprised if there doesn't turn out to be some mis-communication of what was requested and why. We do, alas, sometimes misunderstand a policy statement and start voluntarily following it in cases where the actual policy wouldn't apply. That is IMHO a measurable part of why the path to PS takes so long. :^( -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf