--On Wednesday, 19 April, 2006 15:57 -0400 Leslie Daigle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Reading these comments prompted me to realize that I don't
> agree with John's characterization of the requirement.
>
> I don't believe the intent was that the "verbatim" requirement
> was for "fast tracking".
>
> I believe the intent was to be able to make it plain when the
> text is the way it is for a reason and should not be messed
> with: as a chunk of a document (most likely) or a whole
> document. This may or may not produce a fast track.
That the suggested requirement can be applied only to a chunk of
a document is also not clear, at least to me, nor is it clear
how the IESG (or whomever) would designate such a thing.
> Specific use cases:
>
> . "boilerplate" that's agreed on in an IETF working
> group to apply to all instances of derivative
> works (e.g., IANA registration documents, MIBs
> etc)
>
> . text referring to other organizations' work -- which
> has been carefully phrased and arranged with reps
> of that other organization to deal with some
> politically sensitive issue.
These two examples seem perfectly sensible, especially since
both imply other, and serious, efforts to get the text exactly
right. And both generally require approval of that specific
text in the IETF community. The "LC announcement" requirement
would presumably be applied at that point, with it being made
clear to the IETF community that the text was intended to be
used verbatim. Of course, we do not generally Last Call
agreements with other organizations, but the level of scrutiny
is typically similar.
> So -- if the current req reads like fast-tracking, IMO it
> is wrong and needs to be fixed.
>
> Which should blow out the requirement for LC announcement
> meddling.
See above. I don't think it blows it out (or away), but that it
moves it to a much different point in the process.
john
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
