Just to be clear:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
2. I would like to see us stick as closely as possible to the
letter and spirit of RFC 2026, even if we don't have process
rules that cover exactly what we are doing. Specifically,
I'd like to see normal usage of the I-D mechanism for developing
successive versions of the necessary documents. I don't consider
a web site that I have to remember to look at to be a satisfactory
alternative.
You & I are in agreement.
WRT the plan document: it is an open statement of what we (minimally
IAB & IETF Chairs, more generally IAB/IESG) believe is the sequence
of steps necessary to get from "here" to "there" (where "there"
cannot be finalized until there is a BCP document that has been through
public discussion, revision and has been approved). As such (an
open statement), I don't believe I-D is the appropriate form.
That said, if there are portions that the community needs to
review and approved, they can be pulled out and published as
a regularly updated I-D (and even published as an RFC, if that is
a useful part of our documentation path).
Leslie.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
Yours to discover."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf