+1 On Nov 13, 2010, at 7:01 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf