John C Klensin wrote: > Hmm. If people believe that this document should be processed > as a BCP, thereby presumably constraining long-term IESG > behavior and adding to our procedural core, should it be added > to the PUFI agenda for preliminary discussion?
Yes. A series of postings by sitting area directors about their commitment to following a document says nothing about the commitment of any future area director. If the document is merely a reference to be used internally by the IESG, then it needs no formal standing. If the document is meant as formal criteria to ensure transparency and accountability of the IESG, then it needs formal standing, which means formal adoption by the IETF community. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
