[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    Re: 3933 experiments (was: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Runnin
From:       Barry Leiba <barryleiba () computer ! org>
Date:       2013-01-30 2:32:19
Message-ID: CAC4RtVCe9_B-j5QBD1y+mGT7W=NnqtLrxNRam4hZ7TmGspy=Dg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

> IETF participants are unwilling or unable to
> consider 3933 experiments.  My second reaction was: what if draft-farrell-ft
> was an IESG statement?  Would the same outcome be reached?

When Stephen proposed his draft to the IESG, I counter-proposed an
IESG Statement that would essentially say that because implementation
experience is important, the IESG will consider it in its evaluation.
More text around that, but that's the short version.

The IESG did not consider that approach at the time, preferring to
proceed with the 3933-experiment proposal.

Barry (App AD)
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]