FWIW, +1 --On Friday, July 15, 2011 17:18 +0200 Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > My apologies for the lateness of this review. > > I am not happy with this document. > > I was unhappy with the IESG's decision to close the ION > experiment, since I believe the mechanisms that were chosen to > replace it failed to fulfil several of the requirements that > were driving forces in the design of the ION mechanism (as an > example, try to find out who, if anyone, approved > http://iaoc.ietf.org/network_requirements.html, what the > previous version was, and when this version was approved). > > The document does not refer back to the aims of the > experiment, which I tried to make explicit in section 5 of RFC > 4693, which include: > > - Easy updating > - Explicit approval > - Accessible history > > The sum total of analysis in this document is two sentences: > The cited IESG statement > > It is clear that the IESG, IAB, and IAOC need the > ability to > publish documents that do not expire and are easily > updated. > Information published as web pages, including IESG > Statements, are > sufficient for this purpose. > > The draft's statement > > Taking everything into account, it was considered that > IONs added > complications to the maintenance of documents but did not > give a > corresponding benefit to the IETF. > > I would at least expect those three points to be explicitly > addressed by analysis, such as: > > - The IESG concluded that publication of IONs was more complex > than publishing Web pages and IESG statements > - The IESG concluded that the IESG statement mechanism, which > has no formal definition, was enough documentation of the > IESG's decisions where decision documentation was reasonable, > and that Web pages needed no explicit approval > - The IESG concluded that there was no need to provide an > accessible history of versions of the documents for which the > ION mechanism was intended > > The document also needs a language check, but I feel that the > lack of *any* explicit analysis with respect to the aims of > the experiment, even an explicit statement that the issues > involved were considered not important, is the most important > shortcoming of the document. > > Harald > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf