On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:47:42AM -0400, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > I agree with Stewart, I think a BOF is overkill for this particular short I'm not sure that we need to focus too much on "BoF" -- I don't see many people specifically pushing for a BoF, whether virtual or in Montreal, when work could get done on a non-WG mailing list as well. > and focused draft. Even absent current AD sponsorship, discussion and > refinement of the draft can continue on this list. If general community I respectfully disagree: RFC 3005 is pretty explicit that the general discussion list is only for "initial discussion only [...] unless the issue is one for which the working group needs wider input or direction". The IESG is working on a place to continue this discussion and work through any complications and/or subtleties of this and related topics, before it returns to the general list for IETF LC and the wider input from the community. > consensus around a future revision of the draft can be shown on the list > (as usual, by the absence of continued commenting following a new > revision), it may then be more difficult for the IESG to not find at least > one member to sponsor the publication process, including IETF last call. Indeed. I note that, per my understanding of https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/AreasDescription, an AD sponsoring a draft should have personally reviewed that document and believe it ready for publication as-is. Given the continued discussion regarding this document, I believe that a conclusion that the document is not ready for publication "as-is" is justified, but I'm happy to see the discussion progress. -Ben
