Re: RFC 4612

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>>I suggest that instead of disturbing a couple of thousand people
>>with this discussion, it would be profitable to take it up
>>with the RAI Area Directors. They certainly know more about it
>>than I do.
> 
> 
> The problem, Brian, is that the discussion is about IETF process, including a
> serious question about decision(s) by the IESG.
> 
> That is rather more broad than the RAI area.

I don't see the process issue. Snipping from the Last Call, it was perfectly
clear what the IESG planned to do.

>> Subject: Last Call: 'Real-Time Facsimile (T.38) - audio/t38 MIME Sub-type 
>>          Registration' to Historic 
...
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual to consider the 
>> following document:
>> 
>> - 'Real-Time Facsimile (T.38) - audio/t38 MIME Sub-type Registration '
>>    <draft-jones-avt-audio-t38-05.txt> 
>> 
>> This document was Last Called as Proposed Standard in the past, but
>> review by the Audio Video Transport Working Group and the
>> IESG led to concern that the format not become a precedent
>> for future media types.  It should be registered because it is
>> required for a very specific application within ITU SG 16's
>> T.38's real-time fax support, but shown in the RFC as literally
>> a legacy.
>> 
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
>> iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2005-11-11.

     Brian

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

Re: RFC 4612 - historic status