Re: [PCN] IESG feedback from 3-in-1 encoding/ encoding comparison

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Steve,

I got the impression most people (including you) were converging on 
not publishing psdm & 3-state as historical RFCs (unnec hassle for 
authors, IESG, GEN-ART etc). But then your latest message below seems 
to imply it is decided that we will.

We can publish as historical if people want (personally I've already 
said I don't see the need). However, it would be useful to have a 
decision whether to go ahead by early tomorrow to give us a fighting chance.



Bob

At 05:01 08/03/2012, Steven Blake wrote:
>On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 13:23 -0500, David Harrington wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > It appears to me the drafts have already expired.
> > You can refer to expired drafts in an Informational document, using an
> > approach similar to this:
> >
> >    The XYZ encoding was proposed in a draft document submitted to the PCN
> > WG in <October
> >    2006>. The PCN WG chose to not advance this draft.
> >
> >
> > This way there is no reference to the expired draft, and the intentions to
> > not carry the drafts forward is easy to see.
> >
> > Now, as to whether publishing them as historical is the right way:
> > How much more detail is in the drafts that will be lost if we just let
> > them expire?
> > Is it important to the industry to keep a record of that historical
> > detail, or just a summary of the ideas in those drafts and why they didn't
> > work.
> > I can understand that academically, it might be nice to have these
> > published as historical records, but I tend to agree that having them
> > published as RFCs could confuse people who are not really knowledgeable
> > about IETF practice and the difference in types of RFCs.
> > If the summary seems adequate, then I recommend letting the drafts
> > disappear.
> > You should make sure all your documents do not contain any references to
> > those drafts.
>
>I think this last bit of advice applies even if the WG chooses to
>publish the expired drafts.
>
>Now, are there any volunteers to revise these drafts and get them in
>shape for WG last call?
>
>
>Regards,
>
>// Steve
>
>_______________________________________________
>PCN mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design