|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
[BA] The reply below represents my personal opinion.
Dave Crocker said:
> It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from
[BA] Thanks for raising this issue, Dave.
A document that describes the processes utilized by Modern SDOs should probably take extra care to follow the applicable process.
Below find my best guess as to what that is.
At one point the suggestion was to publish the statement as an RFC; had this been done, the procedures to be followed would have
been governed by the procedures for publication on the selected stream. For example, if the document were to have been published
as an Informational RFC within the IAB stream, then RFC 4845 would apply. Section 3 states:
5. The chair of the IAB issues an IETF-wide Call for Comment on the
IETF Announce mailing list. The comment period is normally no
shorter than four weeks.
However, AFAIK this document is not being considered for publication as an RFC (at least within the IAB stream), so RFC 4845 does not apply.
> He asked for comments.
[BA] Specifically, comments were requested to be sent to the IAB and/or to the IETF list. In the first iteration of comments, the IAB mailing list was given as the place to send comments, and a number of comments were received which resulted in changes to the document. While it might be considered inconvenient, similarly persuasive comments could be received in this round as well.
As noted in the announcement, the intent is for the document to be signed by the IETF and IAB Chairs, both of whom are members of the IAB. Were the process followed in approval of IAB statements to be applied here, then IAB consensus would be required for approval. In making up their minds, members of the IAB can consider any relevant information, including the comments in this and the earlier round. Personally, in making up my mind I would look at the comments on their merit, ignoring the threshold in the announcement.