[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-01
Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Thu, 15 February 2007 08:40 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HHc9q-0003RU-QI; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:40:02 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HHc9p-0003PF-EO for gen-art@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:40:01 -0500
Received: from mtagate8.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.141]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HHc9o-0000tR-2U for gen-art@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:40:01 -0500
Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate8.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l1F8dxsf064390 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:39:59 GMT
Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.212]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.2) with ESMTP id l1F8dwKf1265672 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:39:58 GMT
Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l1F8dw9J002646 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:39:58 GMT
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l1F8dwwO002641; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:39:58 GMT
Received: from [9.4.210.81] ([9.4.210.81]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA368298; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:39:56 +0100
Message-ID: <45D41C5B.3040605@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:39:55 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Black_David@emc.com
References: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E055068B8DE1@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E055068B8DE1@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, jari.arkko@ericsson.com
Subject: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-01
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
On 2007-02-15 05:44, Black_David@emc.com wrote: ... > Should this be a BCP (Best Current Practice) document? Historically, Informational RFC was the only choice for procedural documents that don't change the rules. There is now a school of thought that if this changes the rules it should be a BCP, and if it doesn't change the rules it should be an ION. It isn't intended to change the rules, but just to describe current implementation procedures. So the IESG is going to have to decide between Info RFC and ION. (Unless anyone asserts that it does change the rules...). Brian _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-iesg-sponsoring… Black_David
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-iesg-sponso… Brian E Carpenter