John, I (personally and not daring to speak for the IESG) consider that an RFC updating 4693 to report on the experiment and the consequent acts is a fine idea. Basically taking the text from the email I referenced, but being a bit careful with URLs. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: 06 March 2011 10:32 > To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Mykyta Yevstifeyev'; 'IETF Discussion' > Subject: RE: Where to find IONs? > > > > --On Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:15 +0000 Adrian Farrel > <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Mykyta, > > > > Please see > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg > > 04792.html > > Adrian > > Adrian, > > With the understanding that this is a different question than > Mykyta's, how is someone new to the IETF or trying to understand > our procedures or procedural documentation supposed to find that > out. The usual searches mostly tell me about the ION WG, not > these documents. Wouldn't it be reasonable to publish a short > RFC that updates RFC 4693 into oblivion, says at least that IONs > are dead and maybe explains briefly why it wasn't a good idea. > If the IESG doesn't have enough spare cycles to give that > priority, I assume that, since Mykyta is asking and given the > energy he has been putting into other things, if some AD gave > him a quick explanation, a little encouragement, and a promise > to process such a document, it might appear fairly quickly. > > john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf