On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:38 AM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So we'll only discuss ideas that are written up as drafts, and we'll only discuss them in a working group, and we'll only create a working group around drafts that have traction, and we'll only consider a draft to have traction if there's discussion, and we'll only discuss them in a working group, and ...
No. But if someone takes the time to write a draft, Mike wants us to provide a place to discuss it. From my perspective, that isn?t silly.
Yup - there are at least a few recent cases where there aren't good defaults in place for where to post for a draft, and where asking the author's wasn't really definitive.
There's also the point that for some of those, I *really* don't want to join the wider mailing list as the S/N ratio is poor or simply isn't of great interest to me regularly. Finally, there's the whole "exactly which subject line corresponds to comments on the draft and why did it change 5 times since the original post?" problem.
All of these can be worked around, but at the cost of additional already scarce reading/reviewing time.
The march of IDs is unrelenting. I'd *really* like it if I didn't have to track down an author just to figure out where the document is being discussed. Things like https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johndoe-http2-large-header-blocks/ don't help the problem.
Later, Mike