----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org>; "Olaf Kolkman"
<olaf(_at_)NLnetLabs(_dot_)nl>; "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: not the Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
----- Original Message -----
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org>
To: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>; "Olaf Kolkman"
<olaf(_at_)NLnetLabs(_dot_)nl>;
"John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: not the Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
OK, I waited 24 hours, but...
Dave Crocker, Charlie Perkins and I, and Scott Bradner independently,
proposed
Working Group Snapshots (WGS) in
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage-01.txt
Stable SnapShots (SSS), in
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-01.txt
either of which could be used to express exactly the attribute Tom is
suggesting ("this I-D has now passed from the WG to the AD, IESG etc. and
that suggested enhancements are no longer welcome"), and could be used to
express other attributes as well ("the working group considers this I-D to
be stable enough to implement, so we'll have implementation experience and
won't be requesting publication of a paper design").
Interesting; I had not followed the work on the revision of the standards
process and I see that Working Group Snapshot is similar to what I suggested.
I
was thinking though of the designation being process-driven rather than a
decision by the Working Group, that is, the tools system checks the status of
the I-D and, once the I-D has been successfully Last Called in the Working
Group, and passed on to the next stages, adds a line to the announcement that
is
generated on the i-d-announce list, to the effect that
"This Internet Draft is now in ....."
perhaps with a second line saying
"For more information about the status of Internet Drafts, see
http://www.ietf.org ....."
Again, no change required to RFC2026.
Tom Petch
For extra credit, we could implement these with no 2026/2418 changes, if
changing 2026/2418 is as impossible as it looks - neither BCP says we CAN'T
do WGS/SSS.
Not all the process proposals of the 2003-2005 era were useless, IMO...
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf