Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt

see inline. A great summary, just one nit which might be relevant:

John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
    > WIthout revisiting the argument and various opinions about
    > motivations, the IESG concluded that the idea was just too
    > complicated and/or inappropriate and the idea when nowhere.  In
    > retrospect, they might have been right.  Or not.  Either way,
    > the experience left many of us reluctant to start nibbling at
    > the issues again unless there was a comprehensive plan that the
    > IETF was willing to sing off on.

My understanding was that a major reason NEWTRK could not reach consensus was
that it realized that no proposal could attain IESG consensus and IETF
consensus at the same time because:
  a) IESG people didn't have cycles to engage with the community.
  b) the people selected for the IESG (and who were successful) were the
     people who could operate well with the current rules.

That is, the IESG suffered from a variation of the Innovator's Dilema.
I think that a decade later things are mostly the same, but I think that
the IESG members are generally much more self-aware about the need to
reduce their I* workload so that they can engage in other things.

{NEWTRK is approximately the same age as my son. I recall him being
an infant at a NEWTRK dinner. And he is 11 now}

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature