Re: Why we don't want to actually replace 2026

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 17/09/2013 17:49, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi John,
> At 08:31 16-09-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
>> By the way, while I understand all of the reasons why we don't
>> want to actually replace 2026 (and agree with most of them),
>> things are getting to the point that it takes far too much
>> energy to actually figure out what the rules are.  Perhaps it is
>> time for someone to create an unofficial redlined version of
>> 2026 that incorporates all of the changes and put it up on the
>> web somewhere.   I think we would want a clear introduction and
> 
> I posted draft-moonesamy-stds-process-00 (expired) [1] in 2010.  I have
> to update the draft as it does not take into account the two-track
> change.  I would not post a revision on the web as the IETF Trust might
> not like it.  In my opinion it might be related to the original
> negotiating position of CNRI.

For some years I've maintained http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html
"to assist IETF participants in navigating the labyrinth." It
does carefully avoid red-lining or commentary, and I think it also
shows the complexity that we have created.

   Brian

> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 
> 1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-stds-process-00 
>