You're right about my disagreement :-)
I don't in any way disagree that it is an important
discussion to have. But, the purpose of scoping
techspec was (the usual) one of identifying a problem
we could focus on and solve, without too many distractions.
And I stand by that scoping, here.
Leslie.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
I agree with Leslie here.
We all agree it's a distinct topic. I would tend to argue for it
being in techspec scope, because I don't see where else it can
be discussed, but I suspect Leslie disagrees.
Brian
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Leslie Daigle
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 01:16
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Techspec] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-03.txt
I *assume* individual submissions that go to an AD
are considered IETF technical specifications (otherwise,
why is the IESG spending time on them?).
So then,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
3.13. Exception Handling
...
o Current Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 - The IETF technical
publisher should
have the discretion to reject publication of an independent
submission based upon feedback from reviewers.
I don't think this is properly called an exception, and I think it
very much over-simplifies the issue - see my earlier message on
this topic.
Req-EXCEPTIONS-2 doesn't belong in this document, as far as I can tell.
Leslie.
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
