John C Klensin wrote: > The bottom line, IMO, is that if others in the community are > not concerned about this [...]
I'm curious and watch the public list, and I looked into the I-D (for less than five minutes). [...] > and willing to speak up The only part I checked was 4.2.4, no problem from my POV. > then PESCI and how it is being positioned are what the IETF > wants and deserves... and so be it. As you said it is or was some kind of a "private" activity, same idea as the IMA list, or CLEAR or MASS or SPF etc. If you found some serious issues in the PESCI draft please be more specific. For me the "roadmap" I-Ds are more interesting, because many relevant documents starting with TAObis exist only as drafts and / or as some BCP patchwork, and that's rather confusing. Maybe the "split" of NetWrk into NetWrk plus PESCI was not strictly necessary, but apparently it worked (so far). The NetWrk folks now focus on their "document sets", some kind of "homepage for related I-Ds, RfCs, errata, etc." (trying to outsmart the tracker and Bill's tools, I bet on Bill :-) The "decruft" last call will be soon finished, and maybe there will be similar experiments in the future. The first was a success, wasn't it ? My 2 cents as lurker, bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
