13.07.2011 1:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Mykyta,
I think the draft is fine without this addition, which contains some statements
that I disagree with. I don't think analysis is needed; this all ancient history
anyway.
Brian,
Let me explain why I'm planning to include this sub-section. The
current draft, after giving background, lists all IONs which were
published. Then it notifies the reader about de-facto closure of the
experiment by IESG and provides information on what was done with IONs.
Finally, there is a conclusion, which states that IONs were a bad idea.
Such conclusion needs some basis, and will be unjustified without any
analysis of why were IONs a bad idea.
If you have some objections/proposals, please feel free to express
them. I think we'll be able to find some consensus.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Regards
Brian
On 2011-07-13 04:50, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Hello,
As Russ agreed to sponsor this document on I-D submission cut-off date,
I did make only some minor changed proposed by him during AD
evaluation. However I thought the document would be incomplete without
analysis, so after LC I propose to add the following sub-section in the
draft:
3.4. Analysis and Results
[ . . . ]
abandoned, as proposed by Section 4 of RFC 4693 [RFC4693].
In order not to request the 2nd LC after this text is included, I'd like
to seek community feedback on it during this Last Call.
Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
12.07.2011 17:39, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Report on the Experiment with IETF Operational Notes (IONs)'
<draft-yevstifeyev-ion-report-06.txt> as an Informational RFC
[ . . . ]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf