Andrew,
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 07:29 -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 01:18:12PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
> > FWIW, this came up in the dnsext working group a few years ago. In the
> > end, I don't think anything was done, which is kind of a shame.
>
> Nothing was done for want of workers ;-) We concluded there was no
> real room in official IETF channels for such a publication, but that
> it would be possible for people to do this independently.
I suppose this makes sense in the context of a single working group.
However, perhaps it makes sense for such channels to be created?
I envision two or three types of work related to coming up with such
sort of correlation activities:
1. Decide which groupings make sense
2. For each grouping (for example, DNS, BGP, NFS) create a document
which serves to guide people who actually want to use RFCs in
some way without becoming an IETF guru
3. Some sort of ongoing maintenance
The first two types could quite easily be done by one or more normal
working groups, even if no place exists for such a working group today.
I'm not sure where the last work (care & feeding) would fit. There is
precedent for indefinite-duration working groups, both by design and
accident.
I know this stuff could be done outside of the IETF framework, but it
seems like a shame to have to outsource such a critical piece of work...
actually making RFCs useful. :)
--
Shane
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf