RE: [newtrk] a crufty last call

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

I wish the proposal were expressed in the positive sense rather
than negative.  Rather than a "Decommissioning Procedure",
talk about a "Retention Procedure".

The result may be the similar, but the sense of movement
and the purpose of the committee would be different. The
committee's job is to solicit someone making the case that
a document should not be moved to Historic, and, to some degree,
to evaluate the cases made.

Once the committee's charter is seen as a positive
progression rather than a negative, other activities
come to mind.

I'd like to see the committee not just solicit cases
of implementation experience and active use, but also
look for documents where the actual implementations and
use diverge from the document actually published, and to
solicit active work to update the specification to match
practice, or at least gather errata.

I'd like to see the documentation of active use and
implementation experience gathered, edited, and published
as a positive contribution that will improve the value
of the IETF's output.

If the work product is "some documents now classified
as Historic", that's not very valuable. If the work product
is "some documents' current status and use published,
others left to go to Historic", that's much more valuable
to the community.

Larry




> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Margaret 
> Wasserman
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:58 AM
> To: scott bradner; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [newtrk] a crufty last call
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> >consider this question
> >	"should this working group develop process(es) with the aims
> >	 described in the ID draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt?"
> 
> I'll go against the grain with a "no" vote.
> 
> I am not against the idea of moving documents that shouldn't be on 
> the standards track to Historic, but I don't see any reason why we 
> need a WG to develop processes to do that.  Nor do I understand why 
> we need an officially constituted committee.
> 
> It is my opinion that if the main advocates of this work had chosen 
> to spend their time and effort doing the actual work of moving crufty 
> drafts to Historic instead of arguing about an official "procedure" 
> for doing it, we'd be done now.
> 
> Margaret
> .
> newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
> web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
> mhonarc archive: 
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html