I have been looking at various revisions of this draft since -00. I'm glad
Lars did the first version during IETF 77, and I'm glad that Lars and
Gonzalo kept working on it.
I think it's important guidance for the community. I think it's on the right
track. I think it could reasonably be publis
On 8/15/11 4:40 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I have been looking at various revisions of this draft since -00. I'm
> glad Lars did the first version during IETF 77, and I'm glad that Lars
> and Gonzalo kept working on it.
>
> I think it's important guidance for the community. I think it's on the
>
I think this is a nice document, with many useful suggestions
and insights. I think it would make a great ION if we still had
IONs, a fine IESG statement, or perhaps an I-D that was reissued
every 5 1/2 months to keep it active. The more I think about
it, the less I like the idea of publishing i
At 01:38 17-08-2011, John C Klensin wrote:
The problem is that RFCs are forever. RFCs subjected to IETF
Last Call and published in the IETF Stream --especially ones
that advise on IETF processes-- are also official, at least in
the sense of representing some level of community consensus and
IESG
