On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 09:17 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt
,---
|The three possible ways forward are:
|
| 1. Agree that, apart from day to day efforts to improve efficiency,
| the problems with the existing standards track are not serious
| enough to justify the effort needed to make substantial changes.
| Conclude that [RFC3774] exagerrated the problem and we only need
| to make a relatively minor set of clarifications to BCP 9
| [RFC2026].
| 2. Focus on the issue of document relationships, or as the newtrk
| charter currently says "the creation of a new series of short
| IESG-approved IETF documents to describe and define IETF
| technology standards."
| 3. Focus on the three-stage standards track, or as the newtrk
| charter currently says "agree on a revised IETF Standards
| Track... to replace the standards track described in RFC 2026."
'---
Step 2 should be the first step taken to achieve a description of the
relationships in a simple, easy to maintain fashion. The <name.serial>
provides clarity by offering a name rather than a number that is easier
to remember, and secondly a sequential number to allow a prediction of
the identifier for the next document when it finally emerges. The
relationships, friendly name, and a clear sequence is missing within the
current structure.
Once the existence of a relational document is instantiated, then
Step 3 may seek to flatten the RFC documents by imposing a structure of
similar design to that of Step 2 indicating the level of the
<name.serial> documents and indirectly elevating or lowering the related
documents.
Once Step 2 and then Step 3 are taken, the person isolated on some
remote island only afforded IETF documents should have little trouble
understanding what should be used to fulfill their goals.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf