SM wrote:
Hi Alexey,
Hi SM,
At 08:43 08-06-10, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Which I think is a good thing. "Management items" are second class
citizens during IESG telechats.
The IESG could revert to the procedure used for the first
pre-evaluation I-D where DISCUSSes were filed.
And how is this different from the procedure used recently? IESG can
still block (reject) pre-evaluation documents. The major difference is
that there is no public record of which AD raised a particular blocking
issue. With proper IESG review of pre-evaluation documents, datatracker
can be used for permanently storing such comments.
I don't think this follows. The WG charter doesn't prohibit IETF LC.
If I recall correctly, the two-step approach was to get IESG "buy-in".
Publication of the pre-evaluation documents as RFCs doesn't change this
agreement in any way.
I'll use some text from Section 2.4 of
draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05 as an example for an
IETF LC:
"The WG will consider whether those rewordings are appropriate."
Is this WG going to ask the IETF community whether it should or should
not consider whether the rewordings are appropriate?
One purpose of the IETF LC is to alert wider IETF community about
certain agreements reached in the WG.
You seem to be implying that there are 3 parties here (YAM WG, IESG and
the rest of IETF community) and that the third party doesn't need to be
involved.
Besides, there would be IETF LC for the bis document itself. During such
IETF LC any issues could be raised. Making sure there are no surprises
there would be in the best interests of the WG.
That's like revisiting the WG Charter to determine what work the WG
should do. By the way, the IETF community can still comment on the
pre-evaluation document before it is processed by the IESG.
In theory you should be right. But in practice it doesn't work like
this. Some people don't follow the yam mailing list on daily basis and I
don't blame them.
Not necessarily. IESG can do both.
The IESG cannot have it both ways.
I don't understand why you say that. IESG can send additional statements
in addition to approving documents.
I don't see any conflict in this, or any proof that IESG wants to screw
the WG.
If it wants to formalize the process used for the experiment, it
should go all the way.
I am not sure what you are suggesting. Please explain.
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
