On 08/10/2006 09:47 AM, Scott Bradner allegedly wrote:
>> I'd appreciate input on whether such a task "gates on" the IESG.
>
> since its not being done (nor has it been done in the past) I'd say
> "no"
... which brings me to why I'm replying. The purpose of the "gates
on" list is to assist thinking about the structure of IETF activity.
The fact that we are not doing something doesn't mean we shouldn't be.
IIRC most people thought standards should go through periodic review,
but we didn't have a good process for doing so. So this item is still
on the list of things which _should_ be done, and the fact that we
don't know how to do it effectively doesn't change that. I believe
this should go on John's list.