Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:47:42AM -0400, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> I agree with Stewart, I think a BOF is overkill for this particular short

I'm not sure that we need to focus too much on "BoF" -- I don't see many
people specifically pushing for a BoF, whether virtual or in Montreal, when
work could get done on a non-WG mailing list as well.

> and focused draft. Even absent current AD sponsorship, discussion and
> refinement of the draft can continue on this list. If general community

I respectfully disagree: RFC 3005 is pretty explicit that the general
discussion list is only for "initial discussion only [...] unless the issue
is one for which the working group needs wider input or direction".  The
IESG is working on a place to continue this discussion and work through any
complications and/or subtleties of this and related topics, before it
returns to the general list for IETF LC and the wider input from the
community.

> consensus around a future revision of the draft can be shown on the list
> (as usual, by the absence of continued commenting following a new
> revision), it may then be more difficult for the IESG to not find at least
> one member to sponsor the publication process, including IETF last call.

Indeed.  I note that, per my understanding of
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/AreasDescription, an AD sponsoring a
draft should have personally reviewed that document and believe it ready
for publication as-is.  Given the continued discussion regarding this
document, I believe that a conclusion that the document is not ready for
publication "as-is" is justified, but I'm happy to see the discussion
progress.

-Ben