First, I'm in full agreement with Ross.
Second, for the record and as a response to Keith, my read of the discussion
on the last call was the biggest group of responses said that we should move
forward with the draft. There were two smaller groups, those with a clear
objection and those with roughly a "no-objection" or "it does not cause harm"
opinion (and a group who seemed to discuss orthogonal issues and not respond to
the question). I could of course have made mistakes in this determination, but
I thought it was rough (perhaps very rough) consensus.
FWIW, this matches my own assessment almost exactly.
Of course, it gets more interesting if you start thinking about the reasons
why people wanted to move forward. Keith's latest e-mail has interesting
theories about those. I don't think anyone thinks this is the priority #1
process fix for the IETF.
Agreed.
For me, cleaning cruft from the IETF process RFCs is a big reason for
supporting this work. And I must admit that we seem to be in a place where its
very, very hard to make _any_ process RFC changes. Getting one done, even if
its a small change would by itself be useful, IMO. Finally, I think two levels
are enough.
Cruft elimination is also a Good Thing.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf