Re: PS Characterization Clarified

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

 



On 9/17/13 11:27 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I just posted the third version of the draft at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-02

I would like to change "IESG" to "IETF" in five places:

Section 1:

"the IESG has evolved its review processes"

Section 2:

"IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards"
"the IESG strengthened its review"
"last chance for the IESG to ensure the quality"
"cross-area technical review performed by the IESG"

The IETF as a whole, through directorate reviews, area reviews, doctor reviews, *and* IESG reviews, has evolved, strengthened, ensured, etc., its reviews.

Saying "the IESG" in these places implies precedent setting that I think would be bad. If the IETF capitulated to the IESG changing the rules on its own in the past, so be it, but I think it would be bad to indicate in a BCP that we think it's OK for the IESG to do so unilaterally.

pr

--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]