On 1/27/14 7:18 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I can imagine times where an AD-sponsored Informational document is
useful, but I'm guessing there are far less than the number of times we
do it.
I'm not at all clear why its useful to be bothered about
that. Can you explain how we all win?
Somehow I feel responsible to actually review AD-sponsored documents,
both for content as well as for IETF consensus. It wastes my time as an
AD. I suppose I could get over that and simply review them for end-runs.
I suppose there's also the bigger question of why other ADs are wasting
their time sponsoring, reviewing, and doing all of the process nonsense
associated with publishing a draft that not even a WG is interested
enough to do all of that with. I guess that's mostly that AD's problem,
but it's time wasted that could be better spent. (As you are fond of
saying, ADs will always fill there time, no matter what they really have
to do. I say let them fill it with other things.)
And then of course is the "stake in the heart" of any semblance of our
document categories meaning anything. ("Sometimes, Informational means
there is IETF consensus that this is a good piece of information;
sometimes not.") But I suppose that spilled milk is under the dam or
over the bridge and we might as well lie in it.
...I do not
have any general problem with something that could be sent
to the ISE being handled in this way. And nor should any
of us I reckon, unless we prefer pointless process over
getting-stuff-done...
That's exactly my point. Seems pointless to waste time on the process
for this document when we could dump it over the wall and let the ISE
deal with it. Unless there's some reason it's important for the IETF to
waste time on it.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478