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

[Toby Moncaster <[e-mail]>]

Although it did seem like the balance was towards non-publication I think 
this should be explicitly decided by the WG. I have a marginal preference 
for publication because I think it wouldn't take all that much work.

I did wonder at one stage whether the two could be combined into a single 
historical RFC, but that didn't seem workable. I also wondered if there 
could be more about them in the encoding comparison, but that would make it 
a less balanced document.

However we do seem to be getting fundamentally contradictory guidance 
regarding how to reference these drafts (and not to reference them would be 
wrong/dishonest in my opinion).

Toby

On Mar 11 2012, Bob Briscoe wrote:

>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 
>
>_______________________________________________
>PCN mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
>