IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Wed, 03 July 2019 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 A9CE61200D6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 YTuyDel29IQ3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85FD120096 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44474164AD1D; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:01:28 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QgEPFCRg5cJq; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:01:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.50.224] (173-166-5-67-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.67]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 118E7164AD07; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:01:26 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Subject: Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <355B50AE-0C14-47D5-8ABC-57F1669F0423@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 19:01:25 -0400
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CA48381A-B409-43A3-AFF2-AE4EF35CEA43@sobco.com>
References: <CAHw9_iKv7xDY-rT98F_BAEvGOGbWGL7UpXS42rSVLsHB+=SOZg@mail.gmail.com> <4567879e-aa29-aeae-72e9-33d148d30eed@network-heretics.com> <CAL02cgToQWmOrfOxS_dc4KRtT9e0PXNzmhWZHkRUyV_3V=E-mQ@mail.gmail.com> <0856af71-4d84-09d1-834d-12ac7252420c@network-heretics.com> <CAL02cgQ9qWVUTPW=Cpx=r32k3i1PLgfp5ax0pKMdH0nKObcKTg@mail.gmail.com> <e8d28a7f-128d-e8d0-17d3-146c6ff5b546@joelhalpern.com> <7A61E9CE-370F-4C09-A79D-0206B8467AD9@sobco.com> <CAHw9_i+V5xVzQNhYV_Tt-J4Z2S_x5VARbg1naJToLqxS1qXnZA@mail.gmail.com> <355B50AE-0C14-47D5-8ABC-57F1669F0423@rfc-editor.org>
To: Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yilZbhV0Nah5kTeDGZv2g1K97vU>
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 23:01:31 -0000

this ID was one of a number of thoughts I offered up shortly after I left the IESG after a decade as general 
proposals to try to get people to think  about our standards process - but, not unlike the newtrk[1] effort of a 
few years later, there was not enough support on the then current management (IAB & IESG) for much progress

but I do not think it profitable to rehash the details of the time at this point

Scott
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/newtrk/about/



> On Jul 3, 2019, at 6:44 PM, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 3:32 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:38 PM Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
>> see “stable snapshot” in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bradner-ietf-stds-trk-01
>> 
>> Ah, nice, thanks.. There are some definite parallels with this. What we were proposing is similar, but less “strong” - it doesn’t have anything like IETF / IESG consensus, rather just “this is what the *WG* currently thinks”.
> 
> Ohhh, this is useful, thank you! I tried to do an archive search to find out why that draft stopped at -01. Would you be willing to share why the idea was rejected and/or did not get traction?
> 
> -Heather
> (Now from the correct email address)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email