On 2012-06-10 17:23, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that
the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG
(in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF
Paul and Brian:
Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that
the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG
(in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF
consensus process (presumably ad hoc last calls) and subject
to appeal like anything
I'm wondering if there needs to be a distinction between minor updates
and major updates. Minor updates would be the typo variety or a URL
change and wouldn't require much review at all. Major updates would
require non-trivial review.
Tony Hansen
On 6/11/2012 11:43 AM, Russ Housley
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony
Hansen
Sent: 11 June 2012 17:05
To: IETF
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00.txt
I'm wondering if there needs to be a distinction between minor updates
and major
This draft should formally obsolete RFC 4677. Otherwise, I think it's fine.
This doesn't need to be in the document, but having a fixed location for
the pending version might be good, e.g. http://www.ietf.org/draft-tao.html .
Regards
Brian Carpenter
Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that
the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG
(in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF
consensus process (presumably ad hoc last calls) and subject
to appeal like anything else. This is so obvious
On Jun 10, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that
the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG
(in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF
consensus process (presumably ad hoc last calls)
