Re: My notes on draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt

Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> The focus on document relationships rather than on simplifying the standards
> track is what... sent newtrk off into the weeds. 

   Wandering in the weeds isn't always wrong.

   (We did make serious attempts to "simplify the standards track", BTW.)
`
> Frankly, I don't care if someone on a desert island cannot figure out from
> the RFCs alone how to implement some protocol. I just don't see that as a
> problem we have to solve.

   Thanks for expressing that opinion.

   (Unfortunately, it's not obvious how to find common ground between it
and other expressed opinions that too many folks are guessing wrong about
which documents to follow.)

> Anyway, implementing a protocol requires so much more knowledge than
> can be obtained from the RFCs that no amount of messing with the
> document strategy is going to have any impact on the ability of our
> castaway to become a successful implementer. 

   If our castaway lacks Internet access, IMHO, s/he should give up!

   OTOH, if we can help him/her learn where to look on the Internet, it
seems like a win/win.

>> it's worth revisiting the whole ISD/SRD thing with one new ground rule -
>> no more work for IESG in steady state
> 
> Let me suggest a second new ground rule: no more work for the document
> authors, document editors, or the WG chairs. 

   Hmmm...

   At first blush, that seems extreme...

   Nonetheless, I could easily agree that we shouldn't _require_ more
work by any of these before we can demonstrate a benefit.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf