On 9/1/14 10:13 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> (On a practical note, when I have occasion to react to a random draft >> that doesn't indicate a discussion venue, I ask the authors "Where is >> this being discussed?") > I actually believe this should be a required part of an internet draft. I find myself being reflexively anti-new-process-requirements these days. Be that as it may, I was doing the librarianship thing during a time when open vs. closed stacks was a highly contested question, and one argument that was reliably and inevitably advanced in favor of open stacks was that of the value of "tripping over a book in the stacks." That is to say, there were a lot of people who felt there was value in introducing some (pseudo-) randomness into the process, such that a person looking for information on a particular topic accidentally came across something unrelated and it triggered something innovative. In the IETF context I do worry a bit that overspecialization and "silos" are leading to situations in which we're missing connections and related but perhaps orthogonal work. I see that happening quite a bit on middlebox-related topics and I'm suspicious that peeling nearly all draft discussion off a general mailing list might lead to an increase in missed connections. Many people have pointed this out before me, and I hope many will after me because I think it's a serious concern. Melinda