Normally I don't +1 to email threads, but +1 here, because I think Scott's +1 on John's observation is overwhelmingly correct.
Spencer
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 5:41 AM Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+1
> On Jun 13, 2021, at 7:37 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> --On Sunday, 13 June, 2021 13:10 -0700 Aqua Q Glass
> <aquaqglass@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> a metadata ammendment towards the [RFC,documents] which
>> supersede prior art, as denoted and approved with new
>> documents, will provide hypertext and dedupe questions.. and
>> additionally a place for IETF to maintain FAQs around
>> relatable RFCs, online vs. adhoc email, and with authenticity.
>
> It turns out to be not quite that easy, especially if one tries
> to avoid making other significant changes. This is, however,
> exactly the territory that NEWTRK [1] starting about 2004 and
> running through 2006 or so, with periodic attempts to restart or
> build on that work.
>
> While I believe that, after nearly 15 years, it is time to look
> at these questions again, I don't believe anyone who was heavily
> involved in that original effort would recommend initiating a
> follow-up effort (or a completely new one with similar goals)
> unless it was clear that the IESG was prepared to accept and
> process whatever conclusions and consensus that WG managed to
> reach.
>
> Happy reading.
> john
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/newtrk/about/
>
>
>
