On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:38:29PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > farther, and say that the whole endeavor should be. But having at least > a record from individauls about what *they* said or meant is, I suppose, > not unreasonable. Indeed. And this (and the rest of the posts in this thread) in fact provide such a record, automatically. Historians overwhelmingly prefer primary sources, and the IETF (at least in recent years) is obliging: we have minutes of meetings, full recordings of the audio streams, and long and well-maintained mailing list archives. Historians who wish to figure out the history of some bit of protocol have ample resources. I see no reason whatever for WGs to produce a self-congratulatory (or soul-searching) documents talking about how they managed to do something. An obsession with meta-meta-meta-process is a sure sign of organizational morbidity. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx