On 2008-01-18 08:33, Dan York wrote: > I have to agree with Fred here: > > On Jan 17, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >> I would argue that (1) has not been shown. Several IONs have been >> produced, but I don't see people referring to them. It looks like it >> is being treated as a lightweight way to publish something a lot like >> an RFC, and I'm not sure why the proper response to our present >> situation shouldn't be to figure out what we once had - a lightweight >> way to publish an RFC. > > I've been on various IETF mailing lists for a year or two now and I've > never seen any reference to these ION documents. Obviously there must > have been and I must have missed it... but I've not had other people > point me to them, either. For instance, at IETF 70, I agreed to take > minutes for one of the sessions and when I asked if there was any > preferred format, no one pointed me to this ION: > http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-agenda-and-minutes.html > > Have now learned of them by this email exchange, some of the documents > look both interesting and useful, but I'd agree with Fred that in order > to call the series "successful" there really need to be more people > pointing to them and using them. That's undoubtedly true - in fact they would need to be the normal way we post procedural stuff to the web site (i.e. things like http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html should be IONs). If we are to make IONs permanent, I'd want to see them better integrated in the web site as a whole, rather than being hidden in a corner at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions.html. Just as a reminder, the idea was to have something *easier and cheaper* than RFCs but more organized than arbitrary web pages. Fred might note that "cheaper" with his IAOC hat on ;-). Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf