On 2008-01-18 08:33, Dan York wrote:
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.
That's undoubtedly true - in fact they would need to be the normal
way we post procedural stuff to the web site (i.e. things like
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html should be IONs).
If we are to make IONs permanent, I'd want to see them better
integrated in the web site as a whole, rather than being hidden
in a corner at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions.html.
Just as a reminder, the idea was to have something *easier and
cheaper* than RFCs but more organized than arbitrary web pages.
Fred might note that "cheaper" with his IAOC hat on ;-).
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf