Re: [CFRG] Proposed CFRG process for handling errata

Hiya,

On Sunday, 27 December 2020, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> To be honest, I'm torn.
> 
> IMO Mike is right that what CFRG is doing is making standards and that
> that's traditionally the domain of the IETF. OTOH, as Rich, Stephen, and
> Uri have pointed out, the current process seems to be working well, so I'd
> prefer not to disrupt that. I do think we should acknowledge that these are
> standards (we implement based on them, they're full of normative language)
> and perhaps it's worth looking into the question of how to publish them on
> the standards track. Just thinking out loud, what if the IESG could
> cherry-pick to-be-published CFRG documents for ST publication [potentially
> at the request of CFRG/IRTFC Chair], do a last call, and if there was
> consensus, publish them as Proposed Standard RFCs [perhaps on the IETF
> Stream?].

Not sure how much better that'd be vs. the downref registry?

S.

> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 1:55 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz=
> 40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> > I am glad you said “all good points”
> >
> > I am worried about making any changes because what we have now is working
> > very well.
> > _______________________________________________
> > CFRG mailing list
> > CFRG@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
> >
>