Re: ion-ion-store open for public comment

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz at cmu.edu>]

On Monday, December 18, 2006 10:41:56 PM -0800 Dave Crocker 
<dhc2 at dcrocker.net> 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 the like
> >
> > On the contrary, I don't think the process has gotten any more complex;
> > we just have more documentation about it.


> [...]
> I'm sure the list is longer, but the above seem sufficient for making the
> point.

OK; I stand corrected - the process has gotten more complex, and in many 
cases less flexible.  But the documentation has improved, too.  We can 
argue forever about the advantages and disadvantages of the former and how 
to fix what's wrong without making it more broken, but I hope we can agree 
that having good documentation is helpful.


> Yes, the rules are different, just as the rules for Informational RFCs
> are different from standards track RFCs.  That's why the idea of a new
> RFC sub-category make sense.

Maybe.  But it seems sort of heavyweight to me.


> > The same sort of correction would have taken the IETF six months to a
> > year plus a lot of arguing and reopening old issues.
>
> And then there is the possibility that you are describing a deeper IETF
> problem that needs its own focus...

I'm probably describing a symptom of such a problem.  But I've been unable 
to figure out what the real problem is, and I'm starting to get weary of 
the effort, and of band-aids that promise to make everything all better 
without such understanding.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf