On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 09:17 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt ,--- |The three possible ways forward are: | | 1. Agree that, apart from day to day efforts to improve efficiency, | the problems with the existing standards track are not serious | enough to justify the effort needed to make substantial changes. | Conclude that [RFC3774] exagerrated the problem and we only need | to make a relatively minor set of clarifications to BCP 9 | [RFC2026]. | 2. Focus on the issue of document relationships, or as the newtrk | charter currently says "the creation of a new series of short | IESG-approved IETF documents to describe and define IETF | technology standards." | 3. Focus on the three-stage standards track, or as the newtrk | charter currently says "agree on a revised IETF Standards | Track... to replace the standards track described in RFC 2026." '--- Step 2 should be the first step taken to achieve a description of the relationships in a simple, easy to maintain fashion. The <name.serial> provides clarity by offering a name rather than a number that is easier to remember, and secondly a sequential number to allow a prediction of the identifier for the next document when it finally emerges. The relationships, friendly name, and a clear sequence is missing within the current structure. Once the existence of a relational document is instantiated, then Step 3 may seek to flatten the RFC documents by imposing a structure of similar design to that of Step 2 indicating the level of the <name.serial> documents and indirectly elevating or lowering the related documents. Once Step 2 and then Step 3 are taken, the person isolated on some remote island only afforded IETF documents should have little trouble understanding what should be used to fulfill their goals. -Doug _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf