> On Jan 25, 2020, at 12:26 PM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Joel: > > It seems to me that you would need to pot other things that are in this IESG statement into the BCP that updates RFC 2026. You are really building on top of the procedure that are required by the existing IESG statement. For example, RFC 2026 does not require an IETF Last Call for an informational or experimental document at all. that was the non-requirement at the time working groups wanted to be able to publish informational (at least) documents, for example, background information, whenever they wanted to without the effort entailed in a IETF last-call i.e., the omission was on purpose (at the time) Scott > > Russ > > >> On Jan 25, 2020, at 10:41 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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 > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
