On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:40 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, I've red 5742, and I don't see what you are getting it. I would suggest you make your point explicitly.
Well, it doesn't appear that you (as a document author) had read
since you used RFC 5742 as an objection, although it in fact details some of the "iesg-discuss-criteria" procedures you said didn't exist. You've also said RFC 5742 is irrelevant, and yet it also updates 2026 in similar cases, so I suggest taking a closer look.
I think the name "RFC" is what matters to most submitters, and the stream less so. I also don't think a club of 50-100 people who decide what's allowed to be published (based on how they feel) is very healthy. That's why I'd suggest actually considering policy around documents that fail to achieve consensus. Where are these "Informational or Experimental RFCs to be published without IETF rough consensus" going to go? Should the IESG recommend them for the independent stream? Or would they be an "end-run"?
What are the specific recent cases this draft is seeking to address? It might be helpful to look at recent drafts that would not qualify under this proposed BCP.
thanks,
Rob
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
