Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:29 -0500

Bernard,

	The way I interpret your statement is that you feel that 
replacement of the existing set of documents - possibly with a
single new document - is preferred to writing one or more new
documents with the intent to just "glue" the current set back
together.

	Is that a correct interpretation?

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
--> On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
--> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:59 PM
--> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
--> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
--> Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
--> 
--> My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive 
--> as banning, it is 
--> very important to have clear, well documented procedures 
--> dictating the 
--> process and who is allowed to initiate the ban.  Creation 
--> of more documents 
--> may not be the solution to this problem, particularly since the 
--> applicability and overlap of the existing documents is 
--> already somewhat 
--> unclear.
--> 
--> 
--> >From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
--> >To: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
--> >CC: IAB <[email-masked]>, "Iesg (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>, 
--> [email-masked]
--> >Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
--> >Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500
--> >
--> >Sam,
--> >
--> >One IAB member's perspective:  no, the expectation is not
--> >BCP upon BCP upon BCP.
--> >
--> >The devil is, of course, in the details.   Even community commented
--> >on published operational procedures should not be at odds with
--> >our general or specific process documents, or else that seems
--> >to suggest the process documents need updating.  And we have
--> >a community-defined process for that (which seems to result
--> >in a BCP).
--> >
--> >Again -- that's just one person's perspective.
--> >
--> >Leslie.
--> >
--> >Sam Hartman wrote:
--> >>
--> >>So, a clarification request:
--> >>
--> >>Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement
--> >>does not always imply a process RFC?  In particular, John 
--> Klensin has
--> >>made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are
--> >>better handled by operational procedures made available 
--> for community
--> >>comment than by BCP document.
--> >>
--> >>It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the
--> >>processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all
--> >>codified in BCP.
--> >>
--> >>
--> >>I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would
--> >>appreciate comments from its members.
--> >>
--> >>--Sam
--> >>
--> >>
--> >
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> [email-masked]
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf