Re: Last Call: <draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt> (Retirement of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" Summary Document) to Best Current Practice

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

I tend to agree with Pete - the minutes are more like an official
record, as well. BTW, the IESG Charter (RFC 3710) says:

"The IESG publishes a record of decisions from its meetings on the
Internet,..."

In any case, apart from this detail, I think the draft is good to go.

   Brian

On 06/09/2013 10:20, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 9/5/13 2:45 PM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
>> looks good to me except that maybe using the IETF Announce list rather
>> than
>> IESG minutes as the publication of record
>>    
> 
> The only reason I went with the IESG minutes is because they do state
> the "pending" actions too, as well as the completed ones, which the IETF
> Announce list does not. For instance, the IESG minutes say things like:
> 
> "The document remains under discussion by the IESG in order to resolve
> points raised by..."
> 
> "The document was approved by the IESG pending an RFC Editor Note to be
> prepared by..."
> 
> "The document was deferred to the next teleconference by..."
> 
> The minutes also of course reflect all of the approvals. So they do seem
> to more completely replace what that paragraph as talking about. And we
> have archives of IESG minutes back to 1991; we've only got IETF Announce
> back to 2004.
> 
> I'm not personally committed to going one way or the other. The minutes
> just seemed to me the more complete record.
> 
> pr
>