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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

I also agree that the minutes are the most complete/official record we have.

Jari

On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:40 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>>