Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com> Tue, 31 January 2006 19:42 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 1F41P1-0000TE-Iv; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:59 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F41Oy-0000PA-Kv; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:56 -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 OAA22183; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:41:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net ([69.31.8.124]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F41Zr-0001oa-EV; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:54:12 -0500
Received: from [66.114.247.49] ([::ffff:128.107.248.220]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:41:57 -0500 id 0158807E.43DFBD85.0000562D
Message-ID: <43DFBDA0.2040406@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500
From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
References: <43DFAC4B.1070309@thinkingcat.com> <tslvew06xg0.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tslvew06xg0.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

Sam,

One IAB member's perspective:  no, the expectation is not
BCP upon BCP upon BCP.

The devil is, of course, in the details.   Even community commented
on published operational procedures should not be at odds with
our general or specific process documents, or else that seems
to suggest the process documents need updating.  And we have
a community-defined process for that (which seems to result
in a BCP).

Again -- that's just one person's perspective.

Leslie.

Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> 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