Hi,
on 2006-04-11 23:50 Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) said the following:
> Leslie wrote:
...
>> WRT getting in the way of the type of experiment proposed in
>> draft-eronen-rfc-selective-experiment-00.txt -- I'm sympathetic,
>> to the extent we believe the IETF community *wants* to be
>> able to engage in such experiments (I'll observe it's a personal
>> -00 submission). But, much of the motivation of that experiment
>> should be undone if we do the TechSpec job properly.
The TechSpec job is one prerequisite for eliminating the need for the
draft-eronen-... experiment, right, but not the only one. Inadequate
funding may also be a cause of future problems with increasing
publication queue size and delay, as may other problems with the
process. But as Stephen points out,
> If I understand Henrik correctly, the goal is to not close the door
> on doing a process experiment like this.
Right.
> In the future there may be
> other experiments that we come up with. It's not possible to figure
> out what sorts of requirements we might need in the future to
> accomodate some not yet thought of experiment. If the desire is just
> to allow experiments, I think it is more appropriate to add a new
> requirement to section: 3.20 (Process and Document Evolution). I
> think this is already covered, but if we want to make it explict, we
> should add a new requirement along the lines of:
>
> Req-PROCESSCHG-2 - The IETF technical publisher should participate in
> and support process experiments involving the technical publication
> process.
Good point. This is good, as it speaks to the issue of doing
experiments, instead of having a requirement geared towards one
characteristic of one particular experiment.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
