Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> writes: > On 2009-08-18 07:57, Simon Josefsson wrote: > ... >> This is another reason why the current approach of getting IETF >> consensus on an RFC and publishing should be preferred. Compare RFC >> 5377. It is a well defined process, and unless there is consensus that >> the approach is broken I believe we should use the normal process. Can >> we start and agree on a problem statement before finding solutions? > > It would be serious overkill to do this for trivial legal verbiage changes, > which is what we've been discussing for the last 9 months.
Trivial verbiage changes can have significant practical consequences. If there is consensus around a trivial change, writing an I-D about it and getting it published as an RFC should not be difficult. If it takes 9 month to get that done, something else is broken. I don't see how specifying an alternative publication and consensus gathering path for the Trust will avoid the same problem. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
