Why we don't want to actually replace 2026 (was: PS Characterization Clarified)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

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.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-stds-process-00