On 25-Apr-19 10:26, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I don't get it. Something about recalling IESG members should not progress as a standard without the whole IETF having the chance to provide input and discussion.
But they do. On this list, which by our own rules trumps face to face discussion.
If people choose to disenfranchise themselves by not reading the IETF's plenary discussion list, my sympathy is limited. Yes, there have been periods when I've disabled delivery from this list, and during those periods I've disenfranchised myself from some discussions, and that was entirely my own problem.
> As it stands now, you're pushing this to be "take my words as gospel" approach.
I don't think so. The draft is public and the discussion is public.
A BOF may be a perfectly good next step, or even a WG, but neither is required by the IETF process.
Brian
