OK, I think Dave and I are going to discuss this.
I see a wedge :-)
The problem is where to stop.
I completely agree that the current I-D does not cover everything and I can see
that *some* things can usefully be added.
OTOH, if we don't draw lines, mission creep will lead us, step-by-step, to
attempt to document everything about the IETF in one document. I don't want to
go there :-)
So I can see this I-D *possibly* becoming a document lifecycle description.
I can also see potential for adding some info to the Tao, but the danger there
is that document becomes too big and too detailed to be of use.
Cheers,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu]
Sent: 29 May 2013 20:50
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Cc: Dave Crocker; Brian E Carpenter; adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: When to adopt a WG I-D
On 5/29/2013 11:56 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/29/2013 7:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
My premise is that when introducing people to a new game, it makes sense
to keep things simple and in one place p the TAO.
You can continue to disagree with that if you prefer.
I haven't disagreed with doing that. I disagreed with saying that that
document contains everything they need to know.
Agreed, but if we have more to say, it would be useful to keep it in a
single place - esp. given we have that vehicle for doing so.
Entirely different semantics to the two statements.
I think it's a dandy starting document. But it's a really crappy 'last'
document.
Good reason to make it better, rather than fracturing that sort of info,
though.
And by the way, the draft that's been put forward isn't just for
beginners...
Nor is the TAO, AFAICT, either.
Joe