Fw: not the Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@dial.pipex.com>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org>; "Olaf Kolkman"
<olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>; "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: <ietf@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: not the Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
> To: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@dial.pipex.com>; "Olaf Kolkman" <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>;
> "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
> Cc: <ietf@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:34 PM
> Subject: Re: not the Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
>
>
> > OK, I waited 24 hours, but...
> >
> > Dave Crocker, Charlie Perkins and I, and Scott Bradner independently,
> > proposed
> >
> > Working Group Snapshots (WGS) in
> > http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-dawkins-pstmt-twostage-01.txt
> >
> > Stable SnapShots (SSS), in
> > http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-01.txt
> >
> > either of which could be used to express exactly the attribute Tom is
> > suggesting ("this I-D has now passed from the WG to the AD, IESG etc. and
> > that suggested enhancements are no longer welcome"), and could be used to
> > express other attributes as well ("the working group considers this I-D to
> > be stable enough to implement, so we'll have implementation experience and
> > won't be requesting publication of a paper design").
> >
>
> Interesting; I had not followed the work on the revision of the standards
> process and I see that Working Group Snapshot is similar to what I suggested.
I
> was thinking though of the designation being process-driven rather than a
> decision by the Working Group, that is, the tools system checks the status of
> the I-D and, once the I-D has been successfully Last Called in the Working
> Group, and passed on to the next stages, adds a line to the announcement that
is
> generated on the i-d-announce list, to the effect that
> "This Internet Draft is now in ....."
> perhaps with a second line saying
> "For more information about the status of Internet Drafts, see
>  http://www.ietf.org ....."
>
> Again, no change required to RFC2026.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> > For extra credit, we could implement these with no 2026/2418 changes, if
> > changing 2026/2418 is as impossible as it looks - neither BCP says we CAN'T
> > do WGS/SSS.
> >
> > Not all the process proposals of the 2003-2005 era were useless, IMO...
> >
> > Spencer
> >
>

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