Re: Last Call: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents) to Informational RFC

[Spencer Dawkins <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>]

And we should ask this question every time we see an informational process 
RFC last call...

The best reason to publish a process document as an RFC is because it will 
be a BCP (IONs aren't BCPs). Since this one won't be a BCP, and given that 
guidance could change over time, I'd think an ION is more reasonable.

Thanks,

Spencer

> On Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:20:54 AM -0500 The IESG 
> <iesg-secretary at ietf.org> wrote:
>
> > The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering
> > Group (iesg) to consider the following document:
> >
> > - 'Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents '
> >    <draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-01.txt> as an Informational RFC
>
> This document looks good to me.  However, I am compelled to ask why it 
> should be published as an Informational RFC instead of as an ION.
>
> -- Jeff 



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