Rob, I can see no reason why this document would change what is or is
not considered an end-run.
Yours,
Joel
On 1/25/2020 2:44 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 10:45 AM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx
<mailto:kaduk@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
Apologies for the pedanticism, but there are some frequently confused
items in here (and the terminology of
https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/ has
since evolved).
Perhaps we need an ITAB (IESG Terminology Architecture Board). :)
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 08:25:32PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
> 2) Document Actions (WG)
> 3) Document Actions (Individual)
...
>
> 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.
I assume you mean Independent Submission here (i.e., via ISE).
Yes.
> If the document is about #2, that would be good to state as well.
In light of the above, it seems clear that this draft is proposing
changes
to (2) and (3).
OK. The questions in my original message are still unanswered.
Currently, dissenting or non-consensus Informational or Experimental
documents can be published through any of the channels, with the
rationale that they don't require consensus anyway. While I understand
(and have understood this entire time...) that this document only
intends to change the IETF stream process, my question is whether it
would also add to the set of documents that are considered an "end run".
thanks,
Rob
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
