Re: Call for review of proposed update to ID-Checklist

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
> My approach is to clearly make those changes that are straight forward,
> simple end editorial.
> For other changes, I need to hear (I guess from Russ) that there
> is consensus to make such a change.


Bert, et al,

Something that might help further discussions quite a bit is considering 
annotation and re-organization of the document, to clarify some basic 
distinctions.

For example, labeling the bits that are based on IETF standards rules versus the 
bits that are based on IESG requirements?  Equally, what pertains to 
documentation standards versus what pertains to technical/protocol issues?  The 
document has evolved into a possibly disorganized mixture of these and last 
month's discussions was challenged to separate issues, I think.

This kind of change would not be modification of the Checklist semantics, but 
would add clarity to what is currently there.

Any serious effort to clarify the document in this way is likely to engender 
more focused discussion than was possibly earlier, if only by offering some 
specific and relevant categorical distinctions.

That discussion is then more likely to produce the kind of input that will help 
Russ make those consensus assessments.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf