> The biggest problem I see with RFC 1345, other than its somewhat > ambiguous and uncertain applicability, is that IETF doesn't seem > well-positioned to maintain it. That argument would probably hold if we were attempting to build this from scratch or trying to build something that covers more than the area RFC 1345 is actually useful for. But we aren't doing that. What's needed here is a cleanup, not a fresh start. > There aren't many people who > participate in IETF who have the kind of expertise needed to do a > competent job of revising it. I quite simply disagree with this assessment. As long as the scope is correct we have ample expertise for this. This is not the IETF of circa 1990 and quite a few of us have gained considerable expertise in a bunch of different areas we knew next to nothing about back then. > And I think we'd have a difficult time > attracting such expertise to work on an informational document. No, what we'll have is a difficult time due to politics. > And of course we have limited resources that might be better focused on > efforts that are closer to our core competency. I'm a bit unclear on what these resources are in this volunteer organization that we have that can be focused on tasks as needed. But hey, if we have them, then I'm all for using them on the really critical stuff. And a RFC 1345 update definitely does not qualify as critical. In any case, I have always stated that I for one would be more than willing to work on this (and I happen to have considerable expertise in this area) were it not for the difficulty I predict will arise in getting it through the process. Now, perhaps in your opinion my priorities are completely messed up, but with all due respect, that's just not a call you get to make. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf