On 17/09/2013 17:49, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi John, > At 08:31 16-09-2013, John C Klensin wrote: >> By the way, while I understand all of the reasons why we don't >> want to actually replace 2026 (and agree with most of them), >> things are getting to the point that it takes far too much >> energy to actually figure out what the rules are. Perhaps it is >> time for someone to create an unofficial redlined version of >> 2026 that incorporates all of the changes and put it up on the >> web somewhere. I think we would want a clear introduction and > > I posted draft-moonesamy-stds-process-00 (expired) [1] in 2010. I have > to update the draft as it does not take into account the two-track > change. I would not post a revision on the web as the IETF Trust might > not like it. In my opinion it might be related to the original > negotiating position of CNRI.
For some years I've maintained http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html "to assist IETF participants in navigating the labyrinth." It does carefully avoid red-lining or commentary, and I think it also shows the complexity that we have created. Brian > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > 1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-stds-process-00 >
