On Monday, December 18, 2006 10:41:56 PM -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing
number of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to
know enough about IETF procedures and the like
On the contrary, I don't think the process has gotten any more complex;
we just have more documentation about it.
[...]
I'm sure the list is longer, but the above seem sufficient for making the
point.
OK; I stand corrected - the process has gotten more complex, and in many
cases less flexible. But the documentation has improved, too. We can
argue forever about the advantages and disadvantages of the former and how
to fix what's wrong without making it more broken, but I hope we can agree
that having good documentation is helpful.
Yes, the rules are different, just as the rules for Informational RFCs
are different from standards track RFCs. That's why the idea of a new
RFC sub-category make sense.
Maybe. But it seems sort of heavyweight to me.
The same sort of correction would have taken the IETF six months to a
year plus a lot of arguing and reopening old issues.
And then there is the possibility that you are describing a deeper IETF
problem that needs its own focus...
I'm probably describing a symptom of such a problem. But I've been unable
to figure out what the real problem is, and I'm starting to get weary of
the effort, and of band-aids that promise to make everything all better
without such understanding.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf