Re: Issues around sponsoring individual documents

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

you've gotten a lot of good feedback already. My viewpoint differs a  
bit, in that I'm more hesitant about the widespread use of the IS  
path. An IS should be a rare exception, with the much more well- 
defined and -tested WG process the rule.

Because people see the IS path as a shortcut - and even worse, an  
"insider" shortcut -  the more you let them take it, the more  
requests you will get in the future. It starts to erode the process.  
Just say no. Or, actually, ask yourself if the gain from pushing  
something through as an IS is worth the pain in terms of extra  
management and maybe future work. If the gain is worth it *to you*  
(don't forget the IS path is at your discretion, and your judgement  
decides) then sure, go ahead.

But in general, I'd encourage you to tell people to publish their  
documents through the appropriate working group, and if there isn't  
one, tell them to prepare a BOF. WGs have existed to only work on one  
or two documents (PMTUD, for example). WGs come with chairs and they  
come with an established management process, both of which reduce  
your workload (even more so with PROTO).

Lars

PS: Another alternative to IS is something like TSVWG (and now  
OPSAWG) to work in a more open fashion on documents and topics that  
maybe don't warrant their own WG.