Subject: Last Call results: draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-03.txt

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:13:11 -0400

Approximately a year ago, on October 20, 2006,
draft-carpenter-rescind-3683 entered its second last call.  Today, I
bring you the results of that last call.  Before I start, I want to
make it clear that I do generally get back to documents in time
periods much shorter than a year.  Had I believed there was consensus
to publish, I would have made this a much higher priority.  However as
it was, there were a lot of messages to go through, I had a lot more
important things to do than go through the messages in detail and the
general outcome was clear both to me and the draft author.

However I have taken the time to go through all the last call comments
and to get the issues fresh in my mind.  I hope now to close out this
draft.

There is not consensus to publish the draft in its current form;
thanks David for bringing up your concern leading to the second last
call.  I think there is rough consensus against publishing a draft
containing text similar to section 3 of this draft.  In other words,
the community wants RFC 3683 to remain an option.

However there are several areas where we may be able to achieve
consensus to do something.  Interested participants should consider
writing drafts in these areas:

1) Several people expressed support for undoing the effects of RFC
   3934 that limit suspensions previously allowed by RFC 2418.  Brian
   believes that section 2 of this draft accomplishes that.  Others
   are less sure.  It may be that we could achieve rough consensus
   behind section 2.  It seems like there may be even more support for
   text that simply clarified that RFC 3934 did not limit RFC 2418 but
   that did not itself amend RFC 2418.

2) There was general discussion about whether the IESG had an
    appropriate range of tools.  It may be that creating new options
    with severity less than RFC 3683 but greater than a 30 day
    suspension is useful.  For example would it be appropriate for the
    IESG to limit a PR-action to a specific set of lists?  Etc? Are there other tools that the IESG needs?

Any additional work in this area would require a new draft.  If that
draft were to be approved it would need to start the publication
process at the beginning by finding a sponsoring AD.

Brian, thanks for all your work on this issue.  While we did not end
up approving your draft, I think the discussion was informative and
useful.

Sam Hartman
Area Director

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