Yes, http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
is the "random web page" version that I anticipate will become
an ION. This is a very good illustration of
a) something that needs to be accessible without an arbitrary
6 month expiry
b) needs to evolve
c) needs some minimal level of approval
d) is only relevant to the IETF's internal operations
and is therefore suitable to be an ION and not an RFC.
Brian
On 2006-12-26 21:24, Fred Baker wrote:
A look on the web came up with:
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iesg-discuss-criteria
They have the same date.
On Dec 26, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But, Brian, the concern for costs ought to extend much farther, such
as to the kinds of issues raised by an IESG Discuss so that the AD
provides an explanation of the benefit that justifies the
considerable cost in delay
and wg effort they are imposing...
Hence the DISCUSS criteria document, which is a work in progress (and
likely
to become an ION).
Brian,
Which document are you referring to?
The one that I thought you meant has an I-D Tracker status of "dead"
and is no longer an I-D:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/idindex.cgi?command=id_detail&id=13314>
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
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