--On Wednesday, August 28, 2024 12:01 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 28-Aug-24 10:21, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> >> >>> On Aug 27, 2024, at 5:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter >>> <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 28-Aug-24 08:38, Salz, Rich wrote: >>>>> As long as you (the co-authors) accept that the process may >>>>> mean unwinding the work you have done on (so far) 9 successive >>>>> versions of this draft. >>>> Sure. I started this work (with Scott and others) not knowing >>>> what it would look like after a consensus process was done with >>>> it. No matter what happens, I think a single document is easier >>>> to read than the dozen-plus that changed things over time. As >>>> for my suggestion to hold off discussion, I'm not the IETF-list >>>> moderation team and of course folks are free to ignore me. My >>>> reason for making suggestion was that I thought it would be good >>>> to have a single list for the discussions, rather than >>>> fragmenting. The URL you pointed to on the IETF website seems to >>>> me a symptom of no single formal document. :) >>> >>> I think it's also a living proof that no single fixed document >>> can be sufficient. Like any legal or regulatory system, there is >>> a constant need for updates and additions. Our system of >>> immutable RFCs isn't well adapted to this. >> >> see >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposin >> g-isd-00 > > Indeed. In fact, https://www.ietf.org/process/informal/ started out > as draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap, and was partly inspired by > draft-bradner-stdproc-isd. Adding these specifics (which I had sort of decided to take for granted), to Rich's suggestion about waiting and Rob's suggestion and my note a few minutes ago, I suggest that our next two steps should be, sequentially: (1) Let Rich complete the current effort of producing a consolidated document, devoting what energy the rest of us have to checking his drafts and being sure that he has gotten the consolidation right. (2) Hold a serious discussion, not just about the path to be followed and its objectives (with Rob's suggestion and any alternatives that people want to suggest as starting points) but about how much energy we (both the community and the IESG) have and, hence, what realistic goals might be. For those who don't remember and/or or still carry scars, one way of describing what happened to NEWTRK is that the WG, with considerable community involvement, produced a set of proposals only to have the IESG decide that it did not have the energy or bandwidth to move forward, even into IETF LC. The documents Brian and Scott have referenced were either NEWTRK outputs or efforts to salvage some of the NEWTRK ideas after things melted down. So I hope that, this time, we can be realistic enough about expectations that it is possible to bring whatever we might develop to a successful conclusion. Whether it is GENDISPATCH or somewhere else, we probably need something close to a WG --with very active IESG involvement, not watching from a safe distance-- to figure out what a WG should plan to do and to work out the details of a very specific charter. john
