Re: [arch-d] clusterpation, was Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, Deployability , & Maintainability.

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 15:38 UTC

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:38:07 -0400
Message-ID: <fb26337f-42e6-6ce-2d92-c0a63936fe31@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20200722151110.GM13675@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20200722040028.728C81D5EB94@ary.qy> <0355ce38-cb6d-d4da-52e0-6176e529ca5f@gmail.com> <e60ef33-3f73-4e39-c73e-ea107da2b587@taugh.com> <20200722151110.GM13675@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/iN5NWM2R6Vb65gow1axA-UINYK0>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] clusterpation, was Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, Deployability , & Maintainability.
Precedence: list

> Obviously we could invent a new RFC publication status like "conditional",
> so anything with unresolved normative references gets first published
> as a conditional RFC having a new normative section of conditional
> normative dependencies, pointing to the draft versions.
>
> As soon as ALL the required normative references exist as RFCs too,
> they are all updated in status from conditional to whatever their
> ultimate target status was.

If we're going to republish RFCs I would rather address the general 
versioning question rather than just this special case.  But for this 
special case, I still think a better route is to push WGs to deal with 
drafts in an order that doesn't produce huge clusters.

Some of the drafts in C238 were so old that I worry that the world may 
have changed while the drafts snoozed.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, Depl… Tommy Pauly
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Toerless Eckert
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Brian E Carpenter
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Toerless Eckert
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Stephen Farrell
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Brian E Carpenter
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Joel M. Halpern
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Brian E Carpenter
[arch-d] Re: Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Martin Thomson
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … S Moonesamy
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Tommy Pauly
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Tommy Pauly
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Tommy Pauly
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Toerless Eckert
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … S Moonesamy
[arch-d] Re: Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Christopher Wood
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Mary Barnes
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … Brian E Carpenter
Re: [arch-d] clusterpation, was Proposed IAB prog… John Levine
Re: [arch-d] clusterpation, was Proposed IAB prog… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [arch-d] clusterpation, was Proposed IAB prog… John R Levine
Re: [arch-d] clusterpation, was Proposed IAB prog… Toerless Eckert
Re: [arch-d] clusterpation, was Proposed IAB prog… John R Levine
Re: [arch-d] clusterpation, was Proposed IAB prog… tom petch
Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, … John C Klensin
Re: [arch-d] clusterpation, was Proposed IAB prog… Toerless Eckert