I'd like to comment as an individual on one part of our process for
doing IONs.
The process for publishing them has many bottlenecks and delays and we
need a better way of doing it. If we decide to continue with IONs, I
will provide detailed comments on issues with how we are doing them.
Overall I think we would need tools so that an ION author can put a
new version, reviewers could easily see the diffs from the previous
version, and when the document is approved by the approving body, it
gets posted and does not require manual editing of the document after
it was approved.
On Jan 16, 2008, at 11:41 AM, The IESG wrote:
RFC 4693, Section 4 says:
This experiment is expected to run for a period of 12 months,
starting from the date of the first ION published using this
mechanism. At the end of the period, the IESG should issue a
call for comments from the community, asking for people to state
their agreement to one of the following statements (or a
suitable reformulation thereof):
According to http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/
the first ION was published 12-Jan-2007. This means the experiment
ended last Saturday, and it's time for the IESG to issue the
call for comments.
Please tell us what you think about the experiment. Have IONs been
valuable? Should we continue to make use of this mechanism?
_______________________________________________
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