On 01/28/2014 01:30 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
And then of course is the "stake in the heart" of any semblance of our
document categories meaning anything. ("Sometimes, Informational means
there is IETF consensus that this is a good piece of information;
sometimes not.") But I suppose that spilled milk is under the dam or
over the bridge and we might as well lie in it.
The semblance of that semblance has long left the building
I reckon.
...I do not
have any general problem with something that could be sent
to the ISE being handled in this way. And nor should any
of us I reckon, unless we prefer pointless process over
getting-stuff-done...
That's exactly my point. Seems pointless to waste time on the process
for this document when we could dump it over the wall and let the ISE
deal with it. Unless there's some reason it's important for the IETF to
waste time on it.
Ah sorry, the waste-of-time I meant was caring about the
process here, i.e. what you're doing:-)
I do agree ADs ought use their judgement as to what to
sponsor. But that's enough of a rule for my taste.
S.