Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:31 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rob, this document deliberately addresses a very narrow issue that while
admittedly rare has come up a few times.

It would help if you could describe the documents your draft applies to:

Document Classes Reviewed by the IESG
1) Protocol Actions
2) Document Actions (WG)
3) Document Actions (Individual)
4) Document Actions (from RFC-Editor)

I'm assuming the draft does not apply to #1, since those would not be Informational or Experimental. If the draft is not intended to apply to #4 (even as an "end run"), that would be helpful to state.

That leaves #2 or #3. If the draft is concerned about #3, I think it should state what the IESG is to do if the draft reappears as individual submission.

If the document is about #2, that would be good to state as well.

thanks,
Rob
 
-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux