Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
Ietf mailing list