IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 03 June 2011 03:05 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24395E088B; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 20:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id erSVAH9Hy8di; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 20:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D924E06D7; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 20:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QSKhJ-000JGk-SO; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 23:05:18 -0400
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 23:05:17 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status
Message-ID: <1F69FC6C0DEF58B9E8CB8B6C@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <4DE813E5.1040904@qualcomm.com>
References: <4DE7E1CA.9010309@ieca.com> <BC28F00B6ADCA73F54E8AF4C@PST.JCK.COM> <BANLkTikfhMWuLweofTfjncNY6s_cFZ6VRQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DE813E5.1040904@qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 03:05:22 -0000

--On Thursday, June 02, 2011 17:51 -0500 Pete Resnick
<presnick@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>> Agree, but producing such a "no one cares anymore" RFC and
>> getting it  through the process should be lightweight enough
>> already. It should  slide right through.

For better or worse, I don't believe that has been the
experience in recent years.

>> I hope we don't need
>> yet another special process  because our normal process is
>> too heavy.

> I have no strong opinion on what exactly we should do on this
> point, but the IESG can already do exactly what John wants
> with no change to process. (See the end of 2026 sec. 6.2.) We
> would just have to decide to do it.

My point exactly.

      john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email