Two step, three step, one step, and alternatives

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

 



Russ,

I'd like to make a suggestion that I hope you will find helpful.

We've now got your/the IESG's two-step proposal, Dave's
alternative, discussions about going directly to single step, an
orthogonal proposal about STD numbers (or an alternative), some
other suggestions that haven't made it as far as I-Ds, and
probably some things I've missed or forgotten.  To a greater or
lesser extent, each of these has produced a flurry of comments
on the list.  Those flurries have mostly occurred just before or
during IETF when some of us can't manage to read messages that
are not absolutely critical-path.  They also create a lot of
noise for those who aren't interested and may cause relevant
discussions of other topics to be lost.

For protocol specs, our normal way to sort of competing and
variant proposals is to form a WG.  We know that doesn't work
well for procedural documents.

Partially as an experiment, would you consider creating a
separate list, pointing the discussion there, and appointing a
rapporteur or two with responsibility for figuring out when
discussions have stabilized and then coming back to the IETF
list with a summary of that stability point, tradeoffs, etc.?

I'm not at all sure it would work but, if it did, it would save
us time and likely result in a better result.   Worth a try?

   john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
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]