Re: Last Call: 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling' to Experimental RFC (draft-klensin-norm-ref)

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Fri, 02 June 2006 13:29 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fm9iu-0001Ib-Tu; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:29:56 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fm9it-0001IT-CP; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:29:55 -0400
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net ([209.128.82.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fm9is-0006TK-2P; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:29:55 -0400
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k52DTnt5028507; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 06:29:49 -0700
Received: from localhost (heard@localhost) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.13.6/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id k52DTkMu028492; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 06:29:49 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: shell4.bayarea.net: heard owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:29:46 -0700
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <200606011449.k51Enhku018315@rtp-core-1.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10606020626010.27471-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Cc:
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling' to Experimental RFC (draft-klensin-norm-ref)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Eric Rosen wrote:
> There  are  also   other  reasons  why  I  find   this  proposed  experiment
> disheartening. 
> 
> For  one  thing, it  really  misses  the point.   We  need  to simplify  our
> processes, not make them more  complicated.  Either we need the downref rule
> or we  don't.  If we want  to experiment, let's  experiment with eliminating
> the rule entirely, not with fine tuning it.
> 
> The  real underlying  problem of  course  is the  the multi-stage  standards
> process is just a relic from another  time, and makes no sense at all in the
> current environment.  Experiments in fine tuning the process are nothing but
> a distraction.

For the record, I completely agree with the above sentiments (and have so
stated on the newtrk mailing list).

Mike Heard


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