Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

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

 



On 6/2/11 4:45 PM, Scott Brim wrote:

On Jun 2, 2011 4:05 PM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>But for the "no one cares about it any more" cases, it seems like a
> lighter-weight procedure, such as a Last Call on the question
> "does anyone believe that our impression that no one cares is
> incorrect?"  might be in order (and much closer to the procedure
> that was used when (and before) 2026 was adopted.

Agree, but producing such a "no one cares anymore" RFC and getting it through the process should be lightweight enough already. It should slide right through. I hope we don't need yet another special process because our normal process is too heavy.


I have no strong opinion on what exactly we should do on this point, but the IESG can already do exactly what John wants with no change to process. (See the end of 2026 sec. 6.2.) We would just have to decide to do it.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
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]