IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (Guidance on AreaDirector Sponsoring of Documents) to Informational RFC

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Fri, 09 February 2007 10:10 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFSiL-0007ls-IZ; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 05:10:45 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFSiI-0007lc-H6 for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 05:10:43 -0500
Received: from mtagate5.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.154]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFSiH-0004gR-3m for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 05:10:42 -0500
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate5.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l19AAeXX189838 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:10:40 GMT
Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.2) with ESMTP id l19AAdJj1355950 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:10:40 +0100
Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l19AAdde028048 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:10:39 +0100
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l19AAd9T028041; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:10:39 +0100
Received: from [9.4.210.81] ([9.4.210.81]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA361270; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:10:38 +0100
Message-ID: <45CC489F.8090409@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:10:39 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>
References: <6712A3E2036CF65ADBA37948@p3.JCK.COM> <45CAE07A.40503@piuha.net> <4D052C4551C0CE58B2124A1F@p3.JCK.COM> <tslodo4fzi6.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <055101c74bb3$9e321520$6501a8c0@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <055101c74bb3$9e321520$6501a8c0@china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (Guidance on AreaDirector Sponsoring of Documents) to Informational RFC
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>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> - I'm lost about why we would continue to publish Informational process 
> RFCs (ignoring any existing pipeline of process documents remaining to 
> be published as RFCs).

To me the argument for making this one an RFC is mainly that it
fits together with the two other drafts mentioned previously,
which pretty clearly need to be RFCs. But it wouldn't give me
any heartburn if the community consensus is to make it an ION.

     Brian

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email