John,
I (personally and not daring to speak for the IESG) consider that an RFC
updating 4693 to report on the experiment and the consequent acts is a fine
idea. Basically taking the text from the email I referenced, but being a bit
careful with URLs.
Cheers,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com]
Sent: 06 March 2011 10:32
To: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk; 'Mykyta Yevstifeyev'; 'IETF
Discussion'
Subject: RE: Where to find IONs?
--On Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:15 +0000 Adrian Farrel
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Hi Mykyta,
Please see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg
04792.html
Adrian
Adrian,
With the understanding that this is a different question than
Mykyta's, how is someone new to the IETF or trying to understand
our procedures or procedural documentation supposed to find that
out. The usual searches mostly tell me about the ION WG, not
these documents. Wouldn't it be reasonable to publish a short
RFC that updates RFC 4693 into oblivion, says at least that IONs
are dead and maybe explains briefly why it wasn't a good idea.
If the IESG doesn't have enough spare cycles to give that
priority, I assume that, since Mykyta is asking and given the
energy he has been putting into other things, if some AD gave
him a quick explanation, a little encouragement, and a promise
to process such a document, it might appear fairly quickly.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf