Nico, you over-stretch the "normality" of the process, IMHO. If I can point to a few random RFCs that made changes to process without a BoF or WG... - RFC 7942 (which replaced RFC 6982) - RFC 7776 (lots of discussion) - RFC 8126 - RFC 8318 (this one is very relevant to our discussion) - RFC 7475 These RFCs received varying amounts of discussion on mailing lists. Mainly on this list. It is only a quick sample from recent times, but I hope it demonstrates the point that process changes are often (more often than not, I would say) brought to publication without a BoF, WG, or WG last call. We can debate whether *this* change needs a BoF etc., but we cannot use precedent to claim that it would be strange to not have a BoF or that AD-sponsorship would be grounds for recall or appeal. Thanks, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Nico Williams Sent: 25 April 2019 00:44 To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 03:28:19PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote: > At 02:11 PM 24-04-2019, Nico Williams wrote: > > What's the problem with holding a BoF? > > It doesn't make sense to ask a person who lacks extensive travel resources > to fly to Canada to hold a BoF about a short draft. You could participate remotely. Seriously, please stop suggesting that your I-D not getting sponsored is a moral or ethical failure on the part of the ADs. You've been given a way forward that fits our publication process. We have a process for publication of Standards-Track and BCP RFCs. That process involves an optional BoF, a WG Last Call, definitely IETF Last Call, and IESG review. It would be strange to skip the BoF and the WG LC steps, and it would be stranger still to have an IETF LC on a draft that has had this much discussion and no other forum for discussing it. An AD sponsoring this I-D as it is might well be grounds for a recall petition! :^/ Nico --
