John’s description of how things looked to the working group is consistent with my view as chair of the working group it was a very frustrating experience Scott > On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:47 PM, John C Klensin <john@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --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 It's also worth looking at this (out of date) example: 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 > > >