Greetings All, Just an FYI that we are in discussion with Michelle regarding the process that this doc defines. We did discuss this during IETF 77, but it appears that there are a few clarifications needed.
Thanks for making sure we're in the loop! Sandy On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 02:07:40PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 6/22/10 12:03 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote: > > Hi Peter: > > > > There are two aspects of this proposal: > > > > a) Whether IANA accepts the change in the process to bring the experts > > prior to modifications > > b) A sentiment that the RFC process, in particular the involvement of > > experts in the RFC process, is not enough. > > What do you mean by "not enough"? My understanding is that the IANA > wants to avoid late surprises that might modify registrations specified > in Internet-Drafts, and that they have collaborated with the RFC Editor > team to define improved processes for dealing with such problems > > > While you mention that a) is being addressed, I am worried about b). Do > > we agree that the involvement of experts in the RFC process experts is > > not enough and needs to be amended by I-D? And if we agree on b), > > shouldn't be logical to change the RFC process rather than a workaround? > > It's not my place to define IANA and RFC Editor processes, so I shall > defer to our colleagues on those teams for clarification. > > Peter > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
