[rfc-i] My comments on http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.txt

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Tue Nov 16 17:10:08 PST 2010

Hi Brian,

I appreciate the timeframe is limited -- in my earlier note, suggesting 
specific issues with the document (and why I think it isn't the broad 
perspective Andrew is suggesting) I did suggest:

	+ focus on the parts of it that are actually needed to
	  get the RSE hired, and jettison the rest (for now).

I agree -- it is time for this to move on.  Hopefully, not at the 
expense of community engagement.


Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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
>> recommendations.
>> 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.
> Hi Leslie,
> 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.
>     Brian


      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie at thinkingcat.com

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list