John C Klensin wrote:
The bottom line, IMO, is that if others in the community are
not concerned about this
I'm curious and watch the public list, and I looked into the
I-D (for less than five minutes).
and willing to speak up
The only part I checked was 4.2.4, no problem from my POV.
then PESCI and how it is being positioned are what the IETF
wants and deserves... and so be it.
As you said it is or was some kind of a "private" activity,
same idea as the IMA list, or CLEAR or MASS or SPF etc. If
you found some serious issues in the PESCI draft please be
For me the "roadmap" I-Ds are more interesting, because many
relevant documents starting with TAObis exist only as drafts
and / or as some BCP patchwork, and that's rather confusing.
Maybe the "split" of NetWrk into NetWrk plus PESCI was not
strictly necessary, but apparently it worked (so far). The
NetWrk folks now focus on their "document sets", some kind
of "homepage for related I-Ds, RfCs, errata, etc." (trying
to outsmart the tracker and Bill's tools, I bet on Bill :-)
The "decruft" last call will be soon finished, and maybe
there will be similar experiments in the future. The first
was a success, wasn't it ? My 2 cents as lurker, bye, Frank
Ietf mailing list