Re: I-D Action: draft-wilde-updating-rfcs-00.txt

["Scott O. Bradner" <[e-mail]>]

John’s description of how things looked to the working group is consistent with 
my view as chair of the working group

it was a very frustrating experience

Scott

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:47 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 11:06 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> I think this illustrates the dictum that "there is always a
>> well-known solution to every human problem — neat,
>> plausible, and wrong." [HL Mencken, 1917]. It's not that it
>> wouldn't clarify the exact status of certain RFCs - but it
>> would hardly scratch the surface of the underlying standards
>> spaghetti.
>> 
>> IMHO, the problem tackled in
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-
>> 04 is too complex to be fixed by simple measures.
>> 
>> It's also worth looking at this (out of date) example:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-sample-isd-stdpr
>> oc-00
>> 
>> Anybody up for newnewtrk?
> 
> Alternate proposal:  IIR, the IESG never did a write up or
> initiated a Last Call on that proposal despite a request from
> the WG to do so.   They simply announced that they were not
> going to consider it, an action that is dubious under RFC 2026
> but not prohibited.  Some of us who were active in Newtrk
> assumed that, if there was a Last Call and fairly clear
> community consensus, the IESG would be in an intolerable
> position if they decided to advance the document, but that is
> just speculation.
> 
> As co-author of
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-04,
> I'd be happy to find time to update references and boilerplate
> and reissue it if the community wants to take it up and the IESG
> is willing to given it serious consideration, either on the
> basis of the Newtrk recommendations or through some restarted
> process.
> 
> Where I think I agree with Brian is that this is a complicated
> issue and that a new rule or required paragraph will make things
> even more complicated without improving things.
> 
> best,
>   john
> 
> 
>