On 10/28/2015 9:20 PM, Scott Bradner wrote:
while I’m at it -
RFC 2418 was developed in a general area working group (poisson)
As a relatively constrained increment over the original document that
Erik Huizer and I developed on our own, yes.
And forgive me, but I do not see a section in RFC 2418 that satisfies
the documentation requirement about changes, that you expressed in your
other note.
it would seem to me that a document that proscribes how the fundamental work
unit of the IETF is
to function is of sufficient importance to be developed in the same way -
i.e. if the IETF feels that
an update to the existing document is need it should charter a working group
with such a revision
as its goal
A necessary premise for your line of suggestion is that there are
essential deficiencies in the substance of the current draft. What are
they?
Better: Do you see a groundswell of community interest to form a
working group and take the considerable time and expend the considerable
work that would be needed for such an effort?
this is purely a process point -
Indeed it is.
it is unrelated to the quality of the ID - it is my opinion that the
creation or revision
of the basic IETF process documents needs to be done with significant
deliberation
Scott, What the heck do you think the current posting and request for
comments is meant to be for?
If the community has enough basic concerns about the /substance/ of the
document and enough energy to pursue them, then the community knows how
to decide on a resolution path.
But asserting the need for a particular path in the absence of that
foundational community assessment will cause the cart to quite mangled
by the hooves of the horse as it gets run over.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net