Re: Method Reviewer

[Patrik Fältström <paf@xxxxxxxx>]

--On ons 1 sep 1999 14.31 -0400 John Stracke <francis@ecal.com> wrote:

> To clarify: I do not have a problem with this, as long as the MR's
> decisions can be appealed.  Optimizing the normal case is a Good
> Thing.

My thinking on how this should work in gnereal is that:

(1) There is a review process described, which can for example be that the
proposal should be announced on a mailing list

(2) This mailinglist is viewed among other people by the MR, which is
appointed by the AD(s)

(3) The MR looks at the comments on the mailing list and declares consensus
or not, given that the proposal fulfils all requirements regarding
documentation, technical clearity etc etc, and this is reported to IANA

(4) The descision of the MR can be appealed to the AD, then the IESG, then
the IAB etc etc like "normal" appeal process

If this is not what is described in the iCal (or whatever) RFCs, then maybe
they should be updated. I guess the MIME ones are the ones which describe
this "the best way as of today" so you/one should have a look at them
before carving things in stone.

   Patrik