----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom.Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Olaf Kolkman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:15 AM Subject: Re: not the Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Tom.Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Olaf Kolkman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <ietf@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:34 PM > Subject: Re: not the Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07 > > > > OK, I waited 24 hours, but... > > > > Dave Crocker, Charlie Perkins and I, and Scott Bradner independently, > > proposed > > > > Working Group Snapshots (WGS) in > > http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage-01.txt > > > > Stable SnapShots (SSS), in > > http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-01.txt > > > > either of which could be used to express exactly the attribute Tom is > > suggesting ("this I-D has now passed from the WG to the AD, IESG etc. and > > that suggested enhancements are no longer welcome"), and could be used to > > express other attributes as well ("the working group considers this I-D to > > be stable enough to implement, so we'll have implementation experience and > > won't be requesting publication of a paper design"). > > > > Interesting; I had not followed the work on the revision of the standards > process and I see that Working Group Snapshot is similar to what I suggested. I > was thinking though of the designation being process-driven rather than a > decision by the Working Group, that is, the tools system checks the status of > the I-D and, once the I-D has been successfully Last Called in the Working > Group, and passed on to the next stages, adds a line to the announcement that is > generated on the i-d-announce list, to the effect that > "This Internet Draft is now in ....." > perhaps with a second line saying > "For more information about the status of Internet Drafts, see > http://www.ietf.org ....." > > Again, no change required to RFC2026. > > Tom Petch > > > For extra credit, we could implement these with no 2026/2418 changes, if > > changing 2026/2418 is as impossible as it looks - neither BCP says we CAN'T > > do WGS/SSS. > > > > Not all the process proposals of the 2003-2005 era were useless, IMO... > > > > Spencer > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
