 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John C Klensin wrote:
If the IESG intends this document to merely represent the particular procedures they intend to follow within the range of alternatives over which they believe they have discretion, then it should probably be published as an ION
Not publishing it at all is an alternative. It would send an unmistakable message to wannabe-authors, that they should use the "independent" path, unless they're a friend of a friend of an AD.
That is a complete mischaracterization. The intent in publishing this (and doing so in parallel with draft-klensin-rfc-independent) is to make it much clearer to authors when they should choose one path and when they should choose another.
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.