Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Scott Bradner wrote:
> >
> > > Sam Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > > would it be reasonable to just say that we are going to
> > > > always last call IETF review documents?  Personally I'd
> > > > approve of this option unless people think it is too
> > > > restrictive.
> > >
> > > works for me (assuming that you include non-IETF documents
> > > when you say "IETF review documents")
> >
> > In which case, what you last call is not the document itself but
> > what the IETF intends to say about it, and do about the related
> > IANA action.
> >
> > That being so, I think we now have running code proof that this
> > is what the community wants.
>
>
> To make sure I understand what is being said here, is the proposal
> that a Last Call would be required for the policies labelled "IETF
> Review" and "IESG Approval"?  That seems reasonable to me.  And if a
> last call requirement is added, I don't think there is a reaon any
> more to change the name to "IETF Review" from "IETF Consensus".

That's what I meant.

> I would be less supportive of a proposal to require Last Call in
> connection with the "Specification Required" and "RFC Required"
> assignment policies.  That seems too heavyweight.  However, I do
> think that it would be reasonable to require that the supporting
> documents be reviewed by a designated expert to verify that it they
> are sufficiently clear to make possible interoperability between
> independent implementations.

I agree, as long as there is enough of a public record that
anybody can find out the history.

    Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf