IETF Logo Mail Archive

is there a specific proposal for living ops docs? (was: Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 19 July 2019 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A631205E0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oWcJh1sgWe10 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42D18120045 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AFD418; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 15:24:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 19 Jul 2019 15:24:06 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=EdvImOS5ii6yjzPcs6ALmRNO4XXHqY9ZIZSHcG578 zw=; b=Rc6Wk13uVi+LY0n0RXn5mWA8ALgbC73MUFJ+fTf2f+YfL5/EFJ/44E7r2 8OugKK149egOUM+zzRNDfz7Ick1RhRIRmSH9FriGTjYlmWVaDc+aCYXv7fPIUOi9 zh1sU5qqkcL710ktqPZqf+PcWfcIKEcM0tuKF7F4df5irzULnTBLASY1t28k/w4m wX6XcSPixigBpgPjdg9gEe7uOGUE8RCkbrVqYIExllYwjDS2zj+TwlkC6/QWLcyB LNV3l2odch17QubcjQTdT5+kPoTrRFTXHTHtbJdgwffDUz/gVhBScxJSNwvWbLZu b4tIOXkjXgv++qalS7LJW2GcKmeCA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:1BgyXaz8-9aOu27RqXSO6nRZeo_7Srv4Li5sTajTbixVPN7gmksHGw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrieejgddufeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrud ehnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghr vghtihgtshdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:1BgyXeBfr987ee4I0QIbB0cdNdgiultZXWWsxx1y0ZDaC4WqaxxBgw> <xmx:1BgyXRWCYscNNNDfTWe5_-vCp0LeFpCKL0hA8Kjrd3ym5JbKwORofQ> <xmx:1BgyXYj7AIlt5pGV8yh_v2jtEZx6El7T5CIUh-AkDSjInwZrHZEVbg> <xmx:1hgyXcDZd2jzRXwQoPLkXwbBEfCqidwesVicXCMH_p9g0rNZFh18xA>
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B8F60380086; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 15:24:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: is there a specific proposal for living ops docs? (was: Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <F2D5DCCF-4051-444B-9522-9E11F9F93005@fugue.com> <869599E9-7571-4677-AB9A-961027549C54@network-heretics.com> <144ff436-a7a2-22f7-7b06-4d0b3bcfefac@joelhalpern.com> <20190719041456.GL33367@vurt.meerval.net> <254fc5f6-3576-a62f-b84f-a7c5d29b0055@joelhalpern.com> <a1561aa7-5f41-0e2a-1892-cfb587196ac0@gmail.com> <C3D53639-C2C0-42CE-9708-99294091E012@puck.nether.net> <a17a8648-14c8-1889-4ee3-86996ff6281e@gmail.com> <3B0C189A-D56B-430F-82FF-19DE0DC788DE@puck.nether.net> <BA80E73F53C26B9191294131@JcK-HP5.jck.com> <20190719190534.GG38674@shrubbery.net>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <4f43fac6-ed7f-08ca-d5da-1e84b0a7b12b@network-heretics.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 15:24:03 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190719190534.GG38674@shrubbery.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dsOhM9-1fLr_H_rfxwadBtYiSj0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 19:24:10 -0000

It seems like we've reached a point of diminishing returns with this 
discussion since AFAIK we don't actually have specifics to evaluate or 
argue about.    Maybe the next thing to do for those who want to propose 
this for ops is to go off and write an I-D proposing mechanisms and 
processes?    One that could address the expressed concerns?   Any 
process change has to earn IETF consensus after all.

(or if I missed the I-D that proposes mechanisms and process, please 
point me to it)

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email