![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Tim
On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:14 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
What happens if the appeal is claiming that changes made in Auth 48 should have been reviewed by the working group and go against WG consensus? Given some of the changes I have seen between IESG approval and published RFC, this seems like a reasonable plausible scenario.
On Nov 28, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
John:
RFC 2026 gives two months to appeal any decision. IESG approval of a
document publication is one such decision. RFC 2026, section 6.5.4 says:
All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.
So, the two month timer begins when the approval announcement is sent.
Russ
At 04:02 PM 11/28/2007, John C Klensin wrote: >I don't see any possible reason why we need to give >people two months to get an appeal filed: a month or, at most, >six weeks ought to be more than sufficient.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ 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.