--On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 11:06 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think this illustrates the dictum that "there is always a > well-known solution to every human problem — neat, > plausible, and wrong." [HL Mencken, 1917]. It's not that it > wouldn't clarify the exact status of certain RFCs - but it > would hardly scratch the surface of the underlying standards > spaghetti. > > IMHO, the problem tackled in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd- > 04 is too complex to be fixed by simple measures. > > It's also worth looking at this (out of date) example: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-sample-isd-stdpr > oc-00 > > Anybody up for newnewtrk? Alternate proposal: IIR, the IESG never did a write up or initiated a Last Call on that proposal despite a request from the WG to do so. They simply announced that they were not going to consider it, an action that is dubious under RFC 2026 but not prohibited. Some of us who were active in Newtrk assumed that, if there was a Last Call and fairly clear community consensus, the IESG would be in an intolerable position if they decided to advance the document, but that is just speculation. As co-author of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-04, I'd be happy to find time to update references and boilerplate and reissue it if the community wants to take it up and the IESG is willing to given it serious consideration, either on the basis of the Newtrk recommendations or through some restarted process. Where I think I agree with Brian is that this is a complicated issue and that a new rule or required paragraph will make things even more complicated without improving things. best, john