John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes: > Assuming that I'm not the only one who sees the recent patterns > as problematic I don't think you are alone with that impression. The process you outline (posting preliminary versions in draft-* form) sounds great to me. I suggested it earlier, and the IETF Trust response was at least not negative to the idea. Hopefully it can be implemented. This would also solve the problem of recording the history of document drafts, and making sure documents are readily available via IETF mirrors even if the main site is down or material is removed from it, which is another concern today. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf