While there are a couple of IONs whose content I find valuable (such as ad-sponsoring and discuss-criteria), IMHO the same information could be placed in "ordinary" web pages without losing much -- and perhaps gaining something in the process. Currently, we have similar information scattered over random web pages on ietf.org, random pages in IESG wiki, and the IONs (with different procedures and tools for updating them). My "reading between the lines" interpretation of RFC 4693 Section 5 is that perhaps creating IONs was considered easier than e.g. fixing the procedures and tools for maintaining ordinary ietf.org web pages. (This may well have been correct, BTW -- but perhaps the secretariat transition will bring some new efforts to update www.ietf.org as well?) But looking forward, and considering the question "what should be done about IONs", the answer is less clear. If IONs encourage people to clearly document things that are useful to others, then they have some value there. Maybe - and this is just an unsupported hypothesis - folks at IETF are more comfortable (or efficient, or motivated) with writing things that are called "documents" rather than "web pages" (even when there's no difference in actual content). And moving the same information to "ordinary" web pages would probably mean creating some sort of structure (e.g. header for distinguishing draft and approved versions with some kind of standard header) and processes (for e.g. approval). However, how to organize web pages is a topic where I think micromanagement (from e.g. me) would not be very productive. If useful information gets communicated in effective fashion, I'm OK with letting the IESG to choose the tools they use for maintaining things on the web, and don't really mind whether they get called "IONs", "wikis", or just "web pages". Best regards, Pasi > -----Original Message----- > From: ext The IESG [mailto:iesg@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: 16 January, 2008 21:41 > To: IETF Announcement list > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment > > RFC 4693, Section 4 says: > > > This experiment is expected to run for a period of 12 months, > > starting from the date of the first ION published using this > > mechanism. At the end of the period, the IESG should issue a > > call for comments from the community, asking for people to state > > their agreement to one of the following statements (or a > > suitable reformulation thereof): > > According to http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ > the first ION was published 12-Jan-2007. This means the experiment > ended last Saturday, and it's time for the IESG to issue the > call for comments. > > Please tell us what you think about the experiment. Have IONs been > valuable? Should we continue to make use of this mechanism? _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf