[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [newtrk] Reviewing state of PS and DS standards

Eliot Lear wrote:
>     * We are not practicing what we preach.  The IESG continues to
>       ignore and violate Section 6.2 of RFC 2026 by not reviewing
>       the state of PS and DS standards.
>     * We again do not practice what we preach when we say that there
>       are three tracks.  Running code largely indicates one.

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I specifically do not believe there were any signs of newtrk
> reaching a consensus on the first two points you mention

There was certainly consensus on the first one.  It's a simple fact.
Let's stick to that.

> and I specifically
> do not believe that there is enough interest in the community to
> justify a clarification update of 2026.

... which is to say, there's lots of interest but not enough to
overcome the huge barriers to success.

On 08/10/2006 09:47 AM, Scott Bradner allegedly wrote:
>>  I'd appreciate input on whether such a task "gates on" the IESG.
>
> since its not being done (nor has it been done in the past) I'd say
> "no"

... which brings me to why I'm replying.  The purpose of the "gates
on" list is to assist thinking about the structure of IETF activity.
The fact that we are not doing something doesn't mean we shouldn't be.
IIRC most people thought standards should go through periodic review,
but we didn't have a good process for doing so.  So this item is still
on the list of things which _should_ be done, and the fact that we
don't know how to do it effectively doesn't change that.  I believe
this should go on John's list.

swb
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html