On 2008-04-22 03:04, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 09:41:33PM +0300,
Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes(_dot_)Tschofenig(_at_)gmx(_dot_)net> wrote
a message of 46 lines which said:
Rather than providing these types of summaries it would make more
sense to provide a conclusion of the individual discussions. This,
btw, often does not happen in working groups either. As a consequent
nobody knows (after a long discussion) whether there was a
conclusion or what the conclusion could have been.
Before trying to summarize the (very open) discussions on the IETF
general mailing list, a good start would be to summarize IESG
evaluations... I would be interested to know, for instance, why
draft-ietf-mboned-addrarch or draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation
were not approved by IESG (there is certainly a good reason, but to
extract it from datatracker is not obvious).
seems pretty clear to me; you might disagree, but that's another matter.
However, what you say is why the IESG started its narrative
minutes at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/iesg-narrative.shtml
but they depend on volunteer effort. I find them useful.
IETF mailing list