Hi Sean, > On Oct 1, 2019, at 1:47 PM, Sean Turner <sean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > apologies for the double send. > >> On Oct 1, 2019, at 16:30, Sean Turner <sean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I am in favor of this proposal. One question below: >> >>> On Sep 26, 2019, at 23:44, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> f the group decides that a particular topic needs to be addressed by a new >>> WG, the normal IETF chartering process will be followed, including, for >>> instance, IETF-wide review of the proposed charter. Proposals for large work >>> efforts SHOULD lead to a BOF where the topic can be discussed in front of the >>> entire IETF community. Documents progressed as AD-sponsored would typically >>> include those that are extremely simple or make minor updates to existing >>> process documents. >> >> Is the AD in this case always the IETF Chair? I am somewhat concerned about increasing the workload of the IETF Chair when the I-D might doing something so minor (and possibly noncontroversial) that any AD could sponsor the I-D. It need not be. To take a recent example, RFC 8318 was a process doc that was AD-sponsored by an ART AD. Thanks, Alissa >> >> >> spt >
