Just to be clear:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
2. I would like to see us stick as closely as possible to the letter and spirit of RFC 2026, even if we don't have process rules that cover exactly what we are doing. Specifically, I'd like to see normal usage of the I-D mechanism for developing successive versions of the necessary documents. I don't consider a web site that I have to remember to look at to be a satisfactory alternative.
You & I are in agreement.
WRT the plan document: it is an open statement of what we (minimally IAB & IETF Chairs, more generally IAB/IESG) believe is the sequence of steps necessary to get from "here" to "there" (where "there" cannot be finalized until there is a BCP document that has been through public discussion, revision and has been approved). As such (an open statement), I don't believe I-D is the appropriate form.
That said, if there are portions that the community needs to review and approved, they can be pulled out and published as a regularly updated I-D (and even published as an RFC, if that is a useful part of our documentation path).
Leslie.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
Yours to discover."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf