On May 1, 2013, at 20:11, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>
wrote:
It's what PS *ought* to have been, and what "RFC"s were prior to
1990 or so.
One problem is certainly the cognitive barrier imposed by the RFC process.
-- RFCs never change, so you want to get them right;
-- there is a two-month editorial process in front of the publication;
etc. etc.
So I don't think changing the process leading up to the RFCs is really going to
change that much.
Having a label for a "baked" I-D, maybe some publicly visible directory for
them, but retaining the I-D's fast change capability for editorial changes (and
fixes that turn out to be necessary), would work better.
I also like what Sam said: Try this out first as an informal addendum to what
we have and what works.
Grüße, Carsten