Re: [Icar] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-dawkins-newtrk-wgs-00.txt

Brian,

BEC> I think this version is a bit too lax. I think two explicit
BEC> requirements should be placed on the draft in section 3.1

 That is because you want to make the label heavy-weight, witha high
 barriers. This, of course, is exactly the philosophy that got us to
 the current problem with PS.  (It worked so well with PS, let's
 repeat it for WGS?)

 The goal for WGS is to have a label that is in the transient,
 developmental spirit of working group I-Ds, rather than the
 long-term, reputation-of-the-ietf orientation of standards track.

 And, by the way, requiring cross-area review before assigning the
 label is a good way to prevent using the label for coordinating the
 process of _obtaining_ reviews (cross area or otherwise.)

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
Icar@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar