[rfc-i] My comments on http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.txt
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Nov 16 16:15:17 PST 2010
On 2010-11-17 12:20, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> Your subtlety may be even greater than my jetlag, and the effect could
> well be multiplicative :^)
> Let me try this: I don't think I'm urging requirements for Glenn's
> report from his activities. I'm sure it's a fine report of his
> I'm urging requirements for the production and shape of the next turn of
> the crank on the RFC Editor model, as captured in an RFC.
Are you suggesting that we need something more like the process
that led to RFC 4071 (BCP 101)?
If so, I fear that the IAB's desired timetable would be blown
out of the water.
Given the limited time available, I think we can only await the
next turn of the document crank, due by Nov 22 iirc.
If anyone cares to draft an alternative model as Andrew suggests,
by the same date, we can of course compare them. However, I have to
say that as far as I can judge, the previous documents (5620 and 4844
in particular) clearly described a "broad construction" model in
Andrew's terminology, and I don't quite understand why we would
reopen that debate so soon afterwards.
More information about the rfc-interest