Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
My approach is to clearly make those changes that are straight forward,
simple end editorial.
For other changes, I need to hear (I guess from Russ) that there
is consensus to make such a change.


Bert, et al,

Something that might help further discussions quite a bit is considering annotation and re-organization of the document, to clarify some basic distinctions.

For example, labeling the bits that are based on IETF standards rules versus the bits that are based on IESG requirements? Equally, what pertains to documentation standards versus what pertains to technical/protocol issues? The document has evolved into a possibly disorganized mixture of these and last month's discussions was challenged to separate issues, I think.

This kind of change would not be modification of the Checklist semantics, but would add clarity to what is currently there.

Any serious effort to clarify the document in this way is likely to engender more focused discussion than was possibly earlier, if only by offering some specific and relevant categorical distinctions.

That discussion is then more likely to produce the kind of input that will help Russ make those consensus assessments.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]