On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:33 AM, James M. Polk <jmpolk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> playing devil's advocate here...
>>
>> Say someone submits a request for an existing DS to the IESG and it takes
>> 6 months (or 3 months) to get through the process, but only 2 months remain
>> before the 2 year window is up (since this RFC was published). Does that
>> grandfather the DS into "the process" - meaning that document is no longer
>> subject to this 'within 2 year notice' rule?
>>
>> I'm just saying that this appears to beg all DS editors to get their DS
>> notifications into the IESG sooner rather than later, which is fine, but
>> that also creates a heck of a workload on the IESG that they currently do
>> not have, does it not?
>>
>> Something is going to be impacted.
>
> Make it a 2 year deadline for receiving requests. Problem solved.
Yes, good idea.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf