Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment

[Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>]

100% agree with all your points.

I think we should focus on if the IONs are needed.  If we determine  
they are, then we can discuss things we learned about the tooling and  
how to do it better.

Cullen <with my individual contributor hat on>

On Feb 6, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

>
> - that one should be able to tell who approved it, and when
> - that one should be able to tell the difference between a final
> document and a draft.

>
>
> I think we need to continue to have both of these properties.
>
> There's no requirement that a process exist for handling them, or even
> that it be consistent between IONs. The existing process is,
> deliberately, unconstrained by the RFC.
>
> I could argue that we might need fewer tools, not more; any tool you
> create increases the number of tools one has to learn in order to get
> one's job done. But that's part of what the experiment has been about.



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf