Hi SM, On 20/05/2019 11:20, S Moonesamy wrote: > Dear IAB, > > I assume that the IAB has received a briefing about > draft-moonesamy-recall-rev [1] as it was discussed at the IESG Retreat. No specific briefing no. I'd say a bunch of IAB members are likely aware of the discussion. > If I am not mistaken, an IAB shepherd can provide a review of > architectural consistency and integrity. Does the short draft [1] > require that type of review? Are you asking the IAB to collectively answer that question? IIUC the "IAB shepherd" thing happens when the IESG ask the IAB for someone to shepherd a BoF proposal and they've not asked us in this case that I recall. I don't think it'd be a good plan if the IAB decided to try muscle in to "shepherd" things that might or might not turn into a BoF without being asked by the IESG. And FWIW, in this case, even if asked by the IESG, my starting position would be "no, this isn't something suited for an IAB shepherd as it's an IETF process related proposal" but others may have other opinions and I don't feel strongly about it so I could well be convinced otherwise if the IAB were asked by the IESG. Cheers, S. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-02 >
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
