Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
OK; I stand corrected - the process has gotten more complex, and in many
cases less flexible. But the documentation has improved, too. We can
It has improved massively. I wasn't commenting on that.
argue forever about the advantages and disadvantages of the former and
how to fix what's wrong without making it more broken, but I hope we can
agree that having good documentation is helpful.
Yes, the rules are different, just as the rules for Informational RFCs
are different from standards track RFCs. That's why the idea of a new
RFC sub-category make sense.
Maybe. But it seems sort of heavyweight to me.
ION is a brand new publication mechanism.
That makes it the most heavyweight alternative possible, in terms of total cost.
Whether it imposes more or less 'weight' onto the users is only one of the
issues, and my point about defining a new RFC category specified a lighterweight
overhead than for, say, a standards-track RFC.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf