Eliot Lear wrote:
I garbled:
To the IESG's credit you did provide at least
something of a menu of options, but it was
... not clear you would advance a draft even if we advanced one of those
options.
Well, there wasn't likely to be a blank check promise to advance
a draft, was there?
But I think there is a message here - badly phrased perhaps - that
running code is needed for such proposals to be thoroughly considered.
Suppose there was a proposal that all RFCs should be sourced as XML
files. We have a lot of running code to measure that proposal against.
Douglas Otis started work on running code for his alternative to ISDs.
I'm sure that's the best way to bring ideas in this space forward.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf