--On Thursday, August 04, 2011 10:38 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... >> I don't know if there is a need for "template" changes or >> some formal section in the write up, but it would seem to me >> that an author who has reached a level of getting WG assigned >... > OK, now I *really* don't know what the proposal is. > > If we're not creating something formal, then the > rules/procedures we have in place now are sufficient. Those > are: > > If a WG has been created and "owns" the document, then the > document has the WG name in its filename and usually says the > name of the working group at the top of the first page. > > If it's an individual submission associated with a working > group, it has the first of those two. > > If it's an individual submission not tracking a working group, > the work may or may not benefit from some explicit > association, and none is required. > > In any case, I'm now quite confused about what change is being > proposed here. Murray, While I agree this has exploded out of control and into the weeds, I think there is one fundamental issue. That is whether someone can easily find the right mailing list on which to discuss a posted draft. Modulo distractions, the responses seem, in my highly prejudiced view, to fall into the following categories: (1) We should modify the posting tools and instructions to the Secretariat so that no I-D can be posted unless a mailing list reference appears (and probably appears in a designated format and place). (2) For WG-ish documents, it is easy enough to figure out where the discussion forum is, at least if you have a clue. The advocates for (1) point out that clues are not universally distributed. (3) Especially for non-WG documents, some of us are fearful of a requirement to designate a discussion forum as a prerequisite for posting a document, especially since some documents are posted in order to initiate a discussion of forum. In principle, all such documents could be pointed to the IETF list. That is not necessarily an optimal solution even though it would likely be the effect of requiring an announcement as in (1). (4) Others (probably a partially overlapping group with (3)) just find more rules and requirements for more boilerplate undesirable. They would (at least mostly) be happy if lots of off-list notes went to authors of I-Ds for which the discussion forum wasn't clear, asking them about the discussion forum and recommending that it be included in the next draft. That might actually encourage discussion and would be as, or more, effective at retraining authors than more rules. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf