On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Leslie Daigle wrote: > Last I checked, independent individual submissions were not > part of this discussion.
That's disappointing. At the Vancouver meeting, I attempted to make the case that having a lower-overhead archival publication track is important. Something like the RFC Editor's current ISR path (RFC3932) can help keep some of the cruft out of the higher-overhead track -- in particular, it provides a credible place for a WG to send work that the WG doesn't have the resources or will to spend time on. I think the existence of a lower-overhead archival publication mechanism should be added to our requirements -- it needn't be the current ISR/3932 process (though I think the ISR process could work), it needn't be operated by the same entity that publishes IETF documents (though it would make some amount of sense for it to be), nor does it need to publish in the RFC series (though I'd prefer it to) -- we just need the functionality. I don't think we have to go into great depth about the details of the lower-overhead archival track at this point, I just want its existence to be documented as a requirement. -- Sam _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
