Re: draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-01.txt

[avri doria <avri@sm.luth.se>]

Hi Randy,

This is a case of the later.  The AD, Harald, is asking the WG to review
the document and make comments to aid him in making his decsions.  The 
WG has not been asked to take this on as a WG document.

The comment you make about the inclusion of process that might be better 
 suited to the Nomcom process document is definately pertinent.

Thanks
a.

Randy Bush wrote:
> if the wg is being asked to adopt this as a wg document, i would
> support, but not demand, that.
>
> if the wg is being asked to agree that it is ok for the ietf
> process to run it through as an individual submission, i.e. that
> the wg does not see it as an end-run on the wg, i can agree to
> that.  though i note that it does specify some process which might
> more appropriately be in the base noncom document.  the old opsys
> design of separation of mechanism and policy comes to mind.  but i
> would not make a fuss as it stands.
>
> i am not qualified to validate the code.
>
> randy
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>