On 10/28/2015 9:20 PM, Scott Bradner wrote: > while I’m at it - > > RFC 2418 was developed in a general area working group (poisson) As a relatively constrained increment over the original document that Erik Huizer and I developed on our own, yes. And forgive me, but I do not see a section in RFC 2418 that satisfies the documentation requirement about changes, that you expressed in your other note. > it would seem to me that a document that proscribes how the fundamental work unit of the IETF is > to function is of sufficient importance to be developed in the same way - i.e. if the IETF feels that > an update to the existing document is need it should charter a working group with such a revision > as its goal A necessary premise for your line of suggestion is that there are essential deficiencies in the substance of the current draft. What are they? Better: Do you see a groundswell of community interest to form a working group and take the considerable time and expend the considerable work that would be needed for such an effort? > this is purely a process point - Indeed it is. it is unrelated to the quality of the ID - it is my opinion that the creation or revision > of the basic IETF process documents needs to be done with significant deliberation Scott, What the heck do you think the current posting and request for comments is meant to be for? If the community has enough basic concerns about the /substance/ of the document and enough energy to pursue them, then the community knows how to decide on a resolution path. But asserting the need for a particular path in the absence of that foundational community assessment will cause the cart to quite mangled by the hooves of the horse as it gets run over. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net