OK, I think Dave and I are going to discuss this. I see a wedge :-) The problem is where to stop. I completely agree that the current I-D does not cover everything and I can see that *some* things can usefully be added. OTOH, if we don't draw lines, mission creep will lead us, step-by-step, to attempt to document everything about the IETF in one document. I don't want to go there :-) So I can see this I-D *possibly* becoming a document lifecycle description. I can also see potential for adding some info to the Tao, but the danger there is that document becomes too big and too detailed to be of use. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@xxxxxxx] > Sent: 29 May 2013 20:50 > To: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx > Cc: Dave Crocker; Brian E Carpenter; adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: When to adopt a WG I-D > > > > On 5/29/2013 11:56 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 5/29/2013 7:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > >> > >> My premise is that when introducing people to a new game, it makes sense > >> to keep things simple and in one place p the TAO. > >> > >> You can continue to disagree with that if you prefer. > > > > I haven't disagreed with doing that. I disagreed with saying that that > > document contains everything they need to know. > > Agreed, but if we have more to say, it would be useful to keep it in a > single place - esp. given we have that vehicle for doing so. > > > Entirely different semantics to the two statements. > > > > I think it's a dandy starting document. But it's a really crappy 'last' > > document. > > Good reason to make it better, rather than fracturing that sort of info, > though. > > > And by the way, the draft that's been put forward isn't just for > > beginners... > > Nor is the TAO, AFAICT, either. > > Joe