On 01/28/2014 01:30 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
> 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.
The semblance of that semblance has long left the building
I reckon.
>> ...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.
Ah sorry, the waste-of-time I meant was caring about the
process here, i.e. what you're doing:-)
I do agree ADs ought use their judgement as to what to
sponsor. But that's enough of a rule for my taste.
S.