On 17/09/2013 17:49, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi John,
At 08:31 16-09-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
By the way, while I understand all of the reasons why we don't
want to actually replace 2026 (and agree with most of them),
things are getting to the point that it takes far too much
energy to actually figure out what the rules are. Perhaps it is
time for someone to create an unofficial redlined version of
2026 that incorporates all of the changes and put it up on the
web somewhere. I think we would want a clear introduction and
I posted draft-moonesamy-stds-process-00 (expired) [1] in 2010. I have
to update the draft as it does not take into account the two-track
change. I would not post a revision on the web as the IETF Trust might
not like it. In my opinion it might be related to the original
negotiating position of CNRI.
For some years I've maintained http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html
"to assist IETF participants in navigating the labyrinth." It
does carefully avoid red-lining or commentary, and I think it also
shows the complexity that we have created.
Brian
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-stds-process-00