Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Tue, 31 January 2006 18:54 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F40du-0002Rh-2D; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:54:18 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F40dX-0002HY-Rt; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:53:55 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18613; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:52:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [66.114.247.47] (helo=carter-zimmerman.mit.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F40oQ-0008Bf-DG; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:05:11 -0500
Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id E712CE006A; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:53:35 -0500 (EST)
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
References: <43DFAC4B.1070309@thinkingcat.com>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:53:35 -0500
In-Reply-To: <43DFAC4B.1070309@thinkingcat.com> (Leslie Daigle's message of "Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:28:27 -0500")
Message-ID: <tslvew06xg0.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Cc: IAB <iab@ietf.org>, "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


So, a clarification request:

Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement
does not always imply a process RFC?  In particular, John Klensin has
made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are
better handled by operational procedures made available for community
comment than by BCP document.

It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the
processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all
codified in BCP.


I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would
appreciate comments from its members.

--Sam


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf