SM wrote:
Hi Alexey,
At 06:59 08-06-10, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
During IESG retreat 2 weeks ago several IESG members suggested that
the WG publishes pre-evaluation documents as Informational RFCs using
the standard IETF process. I think this is a reasonable request.
The pre-evaluation I-Ds already have Informational as the intended
status. The template used mentions that:
"This Internet-Draft is not meant to be published as an RFC. It is
written to facilitate processing within the IESG."
If the I-Ds were to be published as RFCs, they would have to go
through an IETF-wide Last Call
Yes.
and the IESG would not be able to process the documents as "Management
Items".
Which I think is a good thing. "Management items" are second class
citizens during IESG telechats.
If the above request was implemented, it would adds an additional
two-weeks processing time.
Yes.
It might also require a change in the YAM WG Charter as it is stated
that the WG consensus is obtained and the WG consults with the IESG on
the changes (and non-changes).
I don't think this follows. The WG charter doesn't prohibit IETF LC.
The -bis I-Ds have to go through an IETF-wide Last Call anyway and the
IETF standards process is followed.
If a pre-evaluation I-D is published as an RFC, an IESG Statement
would have to be included in the document to answer the questions in
Section 2.7 (see draft-ietf-yam-pre-evaluation-template-02).
Not necessarily. IESG can do both.
I don't think that it is a good idea for the IESG to get into all that
as the YAM WG may have more ammunition if there is any strong
disagreement.
I am not sure I follow this, so please explain.
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
