--On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:48 -0400 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Let me explain why I'm planning to include this sub-section.
>
> Why? Your explanation lacks substance, and further effort
> here is a waste of time.
>
> The document as it stands is just fine, except for one
> sentence that needs rewording to make sense in English:
>...
Barry,
I note that we rarely publish analyses of experiments (either
process or technical ones). I think we should do that a lot
more often but, if there is energy to do so, this wouldn't be my
first priority... or even my 20th.
If IESG statements are adequate as replacements for IONs, then
an IESG statement should be sufficient to terminate that
particular experiment. And we already have such a statement.
While I could see publishing an RFC that, as Harald suggests,
reflects on the original analysis and explains why either the
problem was inappropriately described or unimportant or why the
solutions weren't worth the trouble, a document that says,
approximately, "we decided to not do that" adds no value to the
IESG Statement and no value to the RFC Series.
Presumably, when the IESG decided to terminate the ION
experiment by an IESG Statement, they made an explicit decision
that an RFC was not needed and that a detailed explanation and
analysis was not worth the trouble. What do you think has
changed?
So, if only to increase my understanding, why do you think
reviewing this type of document (presumably through multiple
cycles as we quibble about language, etc.) is worth a Last Call
and the community's time?
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf