On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Using the individual submissions track as a way to circumvent working group> process when there is an actual IETF JSON working group seems completelyNo one is circumventing anything. The JSON working group is not
> wrong to me.
chartered to deal with this or other documents like it, and we won't
be rechartering it to do so any time soon. And remember that any time
I'm sponsoring a document as AD, part of what I'm doing is what
working group chairs do in a working group: judging rough consensus on
the document's content and the issues that concern whether it's
intended status is appropriate. If you (and/or others) can show that
there are solid reasons that this should not be a Proposed Standard,
or if I do not see rough consensus to publish it, I will not bring it
to the rest of the IESG.
I would add that CBOR has already seen enough interest and feedback that I believe it would pass a call for adoption in APPSAWG, and be processed there onto the standards track. That would make Barry's job quite a bit easier, since it would then be our job to host the discussion and record consensus in that context. It would also get a shorter IETF Last Call.
Instead, it's going what is for all intents and purposes a tougher route. I'm not suggesting we derail its progress to do it the other way, but it does suggest to me that the route it's following is hardly a shortcut or bypass of some kind.
Instead, it's going what is for all intents and purposes a tougher route. I'm not suggesting we derail its progress to do it the other way, but it does suggest to me that the route it's following is hardly a shortcut or bypass of some kind.
-MSK