IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Substantial nomcom procedure updates (Was: Re: Consolidating BCP 10 (Operation of the NomCom))

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 16 September 2014 23:28 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A951A6F49 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UYY2rd9ZgxGC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22e.google.com (mail-lb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 751BB1A01F7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 10so782446lbg.19 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Qu5rlkJU8piiitzc6/PQ4/JAdQz3brYsctrmn0EpZYE=; b=NzT/8/jGBfYhWD8xJd7G83aKLm5FcoemJP7q3//tZoDRXf7NO4F3GdaKIO1p9vVGtg M6w9bkeQLRaqNl5uPZkJDn2QXGMpvnFh7N2nXUWHBSIrHdhlZHmIU8t4WMFir3UZbBAI zkQogfuJ4Dk4WSJmRIGFaJfirk76AeH6GEI9C17xYJVd9AkLov5lL9/DFfakBBhGOsbr aukxS/lywkRwErUa5lE7wUJjX/qyL/P/Xs4fuOwxkMBuojf8VEM0aogOR0U7bjBW39OS PhdO/b28hRbIoCJHiMzp6fmq4R5qyDOABDB5enxt4lxJYyReelUhv/cqMlDYnGlsyvam dmpw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.19.66 with SMTP id c2mr40883338lae.64.1410910108666; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.211.7 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5418C410.1060405@gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwaK1buBO9W+eUY53OxMVAa9aAMHibrTNVqSB5244f8t_Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140913184700.D87EA1A0081@ietfa.amsl.com> <23509DBF-8596-4354-95CB-C2D14E360B75@piuha.net> <54175DF8.9060709@gmail.com> <541867E4.8010004@cisco.com> <54186B36.3000306@dcrocker.net> <20140916175247.B71091A86E3@ietfa.amsl.com> <5418AC2E.5000802@joelhalpern.com> <5418AFAF.7070403@dcrocker.net> <5418C410.1060405@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:28:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwa7TxyRMdwNLQ6--Di6ODS_Zc_8UYNSoK7XbxFOSonebg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Substantial nomcom procedure updates (Was: Re: Consolidating BCP 10 (Operation of the NomCom))
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01493e46d652450503371b05"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sPhvmjcBQHy86DX4nEbGBmqZM-0
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:28:32 -0000

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I'd rather see a rapid IETF Last Call on draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis-01,
> which is intentionally a no-op in terms of process changes. It could
> easily be expedited as an RFC before the next IETF, if anybody cares
> that much. Then we can have a managed discussion of the issues and
> proposals that Mike has raised, which deserve debate.
>

For what it's worth, the RFC Editor turnaround has been around a month
lately, at least for documents going through working groups for which I'm
co-chair.  Unless there are strings pulled, a four-week last call, a
telechat cycle, and a month in the editor queue won't fit between now and
Honolulu.

But I also expect it would be a very lightweight Last Call, and would make
follow-on evolution of the BCP easier.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email