[Disclaimer: I haven't read all replies in this thread yet.]
Ned Freed wrote:
On 09/Jun/10 13:47, John C Klensin wrote:
>> [publishing pre-evaluation documents as Informational RFCs]
>
> While I may be missing something, I don't see the value
> proposition that justifies that extra work in this case.
+1. It would clutter the RFC series somewhat.
Agreed,
I hear you.
I should have explained perceived advantages (at least from the IESG
side) in more details. Hopefully in a separate message and hopefully soon.
but to be blunt I'm far more worried about the extra work for authors.
A conservative estimate is that this will triple the amount of effort
needed to
put together a pre-eval document. I'm already having trouble finding
the time
to do this work.
If you are referring to your recent IESG experiences with being a
document shepherd, I can tell you that different documents receive
different level of reviews.
The current IESG is way less picky with Informational documents.
In general, the current IESG is quite good with not nitpicking a
document to death if warned/asked in advance. I also haven't heard any
suggested changes to the pre-evaluation document of 5321bis, so I don't
think publishing them as RFCs would actually be much more work.
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
