Russ, I do not see why this needs to incorporate the rest of the IESG
statement. For example, this says that it shall be IETF rough
consensus. The question of how the IESG determines rough consensus is
not something this document asks to change or document more strictly.
I am not trying to remove IESG statements. In this case there seems to
be a clear community view on what is appropriate. Updating our
documentation (process RFCs) to reflect that rough consensus seems
entirely appropriate.
Yours,
Joel
On 1/25/2020 12:26 PM, Russ Housley 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.
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
