I have to agree with Fred here:
On Jan 17, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I would argue that (1) has not been shown. Several IONs have been
produced, but I don't see people referring to them. It looks like
it is being treated as a lightweight way to publish something a lot
like an RFC, and I'm not sure why the proper response to our
present situation shouldn't be to figure out what we once had - a
lightweight way to publish an RFC.
I've been on various IETF mailing lists for a year or two now and
I've never seen any reference to these ION documents. Obviously there
must have been and I must have missed it... but I've not had other
people point me to them, either. For instance, at IETF 70, I agreed
to take minutes for one of the sessions and when I asked if there was
any preferred format, no one pointed me to this ION: http://
www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-agenda-and-minutes.html
Have now learned of them by this email exchange, some of the
documents look both interesting and useful, but I'd agree with Fred
that in order to call the series "successful" there really need to be
more people pointing to them and using them.
My 2 cents,
Dan
--
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork(_at_)voxeo(_dot_)com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
Bring your web applications to the phone.
Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf