Re: Facts and draft-state information (was Re: Protocol Action: 'Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF' to Proposed Standard (draft-kyzivat-case-sensitive-abnf-02.txt)

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

 



Hi George,

[Cc trimmed]

At 10:09 07-10-2014, GTW wrote:
I wonder if "procedures" sort of documents require/deserve the same sort of consensus as "technical specification" sort of documents. This is interesting to me as there is a global standards policy debate whether "governance" sort of documents should/need the same sort of consensus as "technical specification" standards. There is a contention that "governance" sort of documents need not be consensus sort of documents.

Process documents are usually published as BCPs. They gets the same consensus treatment as other Standards Track documents. It would be a bit daring of the IESG to argue that these sorts of documents do not need consensus.

I came across the following ( http://www.ietf.org/iesg/ ):

  "It administers the process according to the rules and procedures that
    have been ratified by the ISOC trustees"

In my opinion the above is incorrect. The reference to RFC 2727 in the second paragraph (see web page) is also incorrect.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy




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