Dave,
I've been waiting to respond to your draft until there was more
discussion on the list but, apparently, either the draft or
other circumstances killed that discussion. During that time,
I've been deliberating whether to send a private note to you or
to post this to the list. Given that your considerable
experience and length of service to the IETF suggests that
others might follow your behavior as a model, I've reluctantly
concluded that the latter is appropriate.
I found the posting of this draft very disappointing. I believe
we make progress in the IETF (and elsewhere) by building
explicitly on each other's work and by open discussion of
changes. Introduction of competing drafts is worthwhile when
those drafts really represent different strategies and models.
But your draft doesn't do that: not only is the original model
(in draft-rfc-image-files-00.txt) preserved, but you used almost
all of the text of that document. At best, that does not
encourage cumulation -- it just creates confusion about which of
two very similar documents one should be discussing.
I believe that there are only two substantive differences
between your draft-crocker posting and the original (your
document would have been much more constructive, IMO, had you
made those differences, and the reasons for them, clear, but see
below).
(1) You have added a few goals. Had you chosen to raise
those modifications on the list and gotten some
consensus for them, we would have happily incorporated
them into the original. On the other hand, you might
have gotten some pushback. The decision to keep the
goals quite limited and focused was deliberate and
resulted from some discussion.
(2) You have eliminated some, perhaps all, of the
details. Without those details, the proposal is reduced
to a general concept that cannot be implemented.
Perhaps you intended that the RFC Editor would sort the
details out and just report them to the community.
However, as we have seen in the reorganization proposal
discussions on the rfc-interest list, many people in the
community do not believe that the RFC Editor should make
such decisions without community review, so eliminating
those details --rather than making them specific and
debating them-- is worse than useless.
Finally and FWIW, by stripping the acknowledgments from the
original document and not indicating the source for the text you
used, it appears that you have violated the IPR requirements for
I-D postings.
So, what did you intend to accomplish?
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf