Re: STD series of documents

John, Donald,
might the common sense experience from a non-internut bring some external 
suggestion? I accept it is not welcome in special environements: IETF is a 
special environment, in particular with its proven records in consensus 
building - let not harm something which works. Anyway I will try this.
If one does not intend to become an IETF specialized geek but to stay an 
IETF deliverables global user, interested in quality control, what seems 
very odd is the lack of network modelization as a common reference. Since 
it goes this way since 1986, may be it is fundamental to the process? But 
John talks of changing part of the operative model: his change might also 
have an impact. So, why not to consider this lack (?) too?
What I mean is when I purchase something, I get a documentation book. In 
that book everything is described or linked: table of content, executive 
summary, annexes, technical parts, etc. and I know that I can sign an NDA 
and dig down to the bottom of the documentation tree to get structured 
information, support, etc. (or it means that the manufacturer is no good - 
good test: who would buy if the boiler plate is poor?). So, if I want to 
change or to add something, I know where to look, what to update, what to 
add. So I know that what I bought will be compatible with future releases 
(and simplify architecture changes). Even on Windows I have such a tree.
This is possible because there is a model acting as a tree structure. Would 
it not be possible to start with a simple entry point "What is the 
Internet", and then to proceed, according to a table. I feel that to some 
extent the WG list provides that - but more as FAQ. This would tell where 
a  STD, an RFC, etc. is expected? May be this "Internet Book/Manual" idea 
is too cartesian? But if something is unclear to the reader, it is often 
because it is unclear to the author.
Another way could be to study what would imply an IETF ISO 9000 
certification. And if there could be ideas to get from that?
jfc

At 22:37 12/06/04, Donald Eastlake III wrote:

> I have long thought that the other document designations (STD, FYI, ...)
> are bound to continue to be confusing minor labels without much mind
> share as long as there documents are also RFCs. The only hope to get
> people to REALLY switch to using these new disgnations in general is to
> make those documents NOT be RFCs.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ======================================================================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       
> dee3(_at_)torque(_dot_)pothole(_dot_)com
>  155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w)
>  Milford, MA 01757 USA                   
> Donald(_dot_)Eastlake(_at_)motorola(_dot_)com
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> > Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:15:53 -0400
> > From: John C Klensin <john(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
> > To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Cc: rfc-editor(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org
> > Subject: Re: STD series of documents
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > This confusion about what STDs mean and what they might do for
> > us finally convinced me to turn an idea that has been kicked
> > around a few times into an I-D.  It is in the hands of the
> > posting queue and should, I assume, be announced today or
> > tomorrow.  Watch for an announcement for
> > draft-klensin-std-repurposing-00.txt or something like that.
> >
> > High points...
> >
> >       * STDs become a separate document series, independent of
> >       the underlying RFCs.
> >
> >       * Their content is a function of IESG protocol actions
> >       or the equivalent, so that they define exactly what a
> >       particular standard "means" and what its content is at
> >       some point in time.  They are also a place to put
> >       comments and suggestions about usability and context to
> >       the extent to which the IETF wishes to make such
> >       statements.
> >
> >       * They get activated at "Proposed", not "Internet
> >       Standard".
> >
> >       * They contain explicit change history and tracking info.
> >
> > It may not be right (and will need work even if it is), but the
> > document may at least help focus this, and some closely related,
> > discussions.
> >
> > I expect discussion to occur on the Newtrk list.
> >
> >     john
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf