On 28.08.2019 18:59, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
+1 to what Joel said. But with the proviso that the RFC and ID formats are not something the RFCInterest group should decide by themselves. It might be appropriate
It was called "design commitee", AFAIR. And in hindsight I agree that the process didn't work that well. I'm not convinced that something else would have worked much better though. Designing vocabularies is tricky and invites bike-shedding. (Remember the Atom WG?).
to do a -bis on RFC7991 to reflect the state of the tools after the initial rollout. But the format has to evolve to meet the needs of the IETF as a whole, not just the interest group. ...
Absolutely. But then it also shouldn't evolve just based on the preferences of the implementer, right? That's why I was asking for a transparent process to revise 7991bis, after all. Best regards, Julian
