Re: ion-ion-store open for public comment

[Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

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 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.

ION is a brand new publication mechanism.

That makes it the most heavyweight alternative possible, in terms of total cost. 
Whether it imposes more or less 'weight' onto the users is only one of the 
issues, and my point about defining a new RFC category specified a lighterweight 
overhead than for, say, a standards-track RFC.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

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