On 03/12/2012 06:01, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > One of the advantages of a standards organization such as the IETF is > cross-concern review. For the IETF, one very strong cross-concern is > security. Another one (also for my personally) is internationalization. > Another, more vague one, is general architecture. Early running code is > very often (not always) characterized by the fact that such > cross-concerns are actively or passively ignored. An excellent point. The fact that a hack works, and can be implemented, does not alter the fact that it's a hack. This is the sort of thing that cross-area review is supposed to look for. As a gen-art reviewer, I am sometimes surprised by what gets through to Last Call in the regular process - if the whole review process is squeezed down to a couple of weeks, we will definitely miss cross-area issues. Encouraging running code is a Good Thing. Publishing sloppy specifications is a Bad Thing. The Interop show network used to be a Very Good Thing. We've lost that, though I was delighted to see some actual running code at Bits-n-Bytes in Atlanta. More please. Maybe a prize for Best Demo? Brian > > I had a look at your draft and checked for "security" and > "internationalization", but only found the former, and not not in a > discussion about how this proposal would make sure that cross-concerns > are adequately addressed. > > Regards, Martin. > > On 2012/12/02 5:12, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement. >> If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as >> an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then >> that's fine, it can die. >> >> The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't >> be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no >> "official" status whatsoever. >> >> Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome. >> Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this >> list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible, >> this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list. >> >> Regards, >> Stephen. >> >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft >> >