Why do you think a new IESG statement is better than an RFC. The only
difference I can see is that it leaves the IESG an out. Which seems to
me to be the wrong answer. This issue ought not, it seems to me, be one
of IESG judgment.
Yours,
Joel
On 1/25/2020 10:27 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Joel and EKR:
this document deliberately addresses a very narrow issue that while
admittedly rare has come up a few times.
In 2007, the IESG published this statement:
https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/area-director-sponsoring-documents/
In this statement, the IESG says that it will not approve any document
without an IETF Last Call. See the first paragraph of Section 4.
I suggest a better way forward would be to post an updated IESG
statement that requires consensus as well.
Russ
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
