John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:
Assuming that I'm not the only one who sees the recent patterns
as problematic
I don't think you are alone with that impression. The process you
outline (posting preliminary versions in draft-* form) sounds great to
me. I suggested it earlier, and the IETF Trust response was at least
not negative to the idea. Hopefully it can be implemented. This would
also solve the problem of recording the history of document drafts, and
making sure documents are readily available via IETF mirrors even if the
main site is down or material is removed from it, which is another
concern today.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf