On 2012-01-01 19:13, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Thomas Roessler wrote:
I'm not interested in a game of process nomics.
If you are not interested in discussing whether it was "premature ... to
request publication of this document as an RFC" then don't suggest that
it was? The IETF is currently discussing proper procedures for this kind
of third-party registration in various places like "happiana", you will
excuse that some of us are interested in finding suitable guidelines.
Speaking as liaison, I've already pointed you at the appropriate people
to ask for review. This being an individual, informational draft, I
think it's fair to expect the submitter to go and secure the appropriate
review.
I think it's fair to expect you to keep people in the W3C apprised about
developments in the IETF relevant to their work, and I think it's fair
to dismiss your opinion in this matter given that you don't want to dis-
cuss it. Mykyta Yevstifeyev made a draft, interested parties were made
aware of the draft, and after some weeks with no comments from them, as
far as I am aware, Mykyta Yevstifeyev asked for publication of the draft
as RFC. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. If you disagree
perhaps you can find someone to argue your point on the "happiana" list
so we can give better guidance to our fellow community members.
Björn,
I'm almost with you.
However, changing the actual definition and adding an additional post LC
would be kind of surprising, wouldn't it?
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf