- From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:17:07 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
- CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, public-iri@w3.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
On 2/10/2011 5:34 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > As a reviewer, I sometimes make a recommendation that is in the spirit > of the proposal even if not explicitly covered by the letter, but also > alerting the relevant IESG director if I do so. I think this is very > much in the IETF spirit of "do the right thing". > > For the message header registry, there some "weasel words" to allow > some flexibility in section 4.4 that were intended to help circumvent > unnecessary process-wrangling, ending with "The IESG is the final > arbiter of any objection." > > It seems to me that if the IANA+reviewer make a visible disposition > that nobody objects to, the easiest thing is to just do it. > > I'm not sure if it's necessary, but one might consider a minor update > up the registration RFC(s) to provide this lattitude more explicitly, > with further effort to be expended only in the event of an objection. > At some point, we need to trust the process participants (reserving > the option to verify), or we get nowhere. +1
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 16:24:08 UTC