Dave,
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In other words, Brian, by running the experiment, in its current
form, you are
ensuring that meaningful changes can't be made without disruption.
I truly don't get your concern. We have mechanisms today to get
operational material onto th
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
OK; I stand corrected - the process has gotten more complex, and in many
cases less flexible. But the documentation has improved, too. We can
It has improved massively. I wasn't commenting on that.
argue forever about the advantages and disadvantages of the form
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In other words, Brian, by running the experiment, in its current form,
you are
ensuring that meaningful changes can't be made without disruption.
I truly don't get your concern. We have mechanisms today to get
operational material onto the IETF web site. We won't be
On Monday, December 18, 2006 10:41:56 PM -0800 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing
number of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to
know enough about IETF procedures and
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If this sort of experiment is successful, then there will be significant
disruption to the user base if the mechanism is moved to a new hosting
mechanism.
As stated in 4693, we'd simply keep them as web pages at www.ietf.org.
This
isn't rocket
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If this sort of experiment is successful, then there will be significant
disruption to the user base if the mechanism is moved to a new hosting
mechanism.
As stated in 4693, we'd simply keep them as web pages at www.ietf.org. This
isn't rocket science.
Thanks for ma
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As for you last sentence, perhaps it should give some pause. The
idea that we do not already have a pretty clear idea of what should
distinguish an I-D from an ION ought to engender concern. Like any
other project consuming significant resource
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing number
of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to know
enough about IETF procedures and the like
On the contrary, I don't think the process has gotten any more complex;
we just h
On Sunday, December 17, 2006 06:05:45 PM -0800 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing number
of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to know
enough about IETF procedures and the like
On the contrary,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As for you last sentence, perhaps it should give some pause. The idea
that we do not already have a pretty clear idea of what should
distinguish an I-D from an ION ought to engender concern. Like any
other project consuming significant resources, an "experiment" is
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
So internet drafts, however ephemeral we claim them to be, are
versioned and referenceable. I don't know that the final step (the
RFC) is any less permanent than the history we maintain of the
drafts leading up to it.
That's beside the poin
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
So internet drafts, however ephemeral we claim them to be, are
versioned and referenceable. I don't know that the final step (the
RFC) is any less permanent than the history we maintain of the drafts
leading up to it.
That's beside the point. This is nothing to d
Fred Baker wrote:
This document describes a process for managing a set of documents.
IMHO, it is a bit onerous; I may be ignorant, but I don't know how to
get an account on tools.ietf.org,
Really? I thought most WG chairs had one by now. There is a button to
click on the tools web site.
and
This document describes a process for managing a set of documents.
IMHO, it is a bit onerous; I may be ignorant, but I don't know how to
get an account on tools.ietf.org, and I'm not sure that having ssh
access to the machine is necessary. Approaches used by common
blogging and wiki softwar
On Dec 15, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Brian;
On Dec 15, 2006, at 5:03 AM, Brian Carpenter wrote:
An ION (IETF Operational Note, see RFC 4693) is open for public
comment
on the ietf@ietf.org list. Comments should be sent by 2006-12-31.
You don'
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Brian;
On Dec 15, 2006, at 5:03 AM, Brian Carpenter wrote:
An ION (IETF Operational Note, see RFC 4693) is open for public comment
on the ietf@ietf.org list. Comments should be sent by 2006-12-31.
You don't say to where comments should be sent, so I am sending
Dear Brian;
On Dec 15, 2006, at 5:03 AM, Brian Carpenter wrote:
An ION (IETF Operational Note, see RFC 4693) is open for public
comment
on the ietf@ietf.org list. Comments should be sent by 2006-12-31.
You don't say to where comments should be sent, so I am sending this
to the IETF list.
17 matches
Mail list logo
