Re: [Pesci-discuss] Hoping Pesci is still flopping around...

Spencer,

The points you raise suggest territory that lies somewhere between
newtrk and pesci, plus a touch of web site maintenance.

Let me start by asking a question (and remember that this list
isn't a WG, so this question isn't constrained by a charter).

Should I do something with draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap?

I compiled it largely for my own education, but I do feel that
it may have (non normative) value.

If it did become an agreed guide to process documents, it could
well be used as a web site reference.

     Brian

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Dear PESCI team,
> 
> The Gen-ART team tripped over a draft from some new authors this week 
> with all kinds of problems, at least some of which result from the pile 
> of process documents we are now using. (Don't worry, they had plenty of 
> other problems - but our pile of process documents didn't help!)
> 
> "Problems" included things like missing normative references to other 
> drafts, because they thought we weren't kidding when we said
> 
>>       ********************************************************
>>       *                                                      *
>>       *   Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft    *
>>       *   be referenced by any paper, report, or Request-    *
>>       *   for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *
>>       *   with an Internet-Draft.                            *
>>       *                                                      *
>>       ********************************************************
> 
> 
> ... which would have been a whole lot easier to overlook, except it's IN 
> A BOX FOR EMPHASIS... Of course, the following paragraph tells you a 
> circimstance where you CAN reference an Internet-Draft, but perhaps the 
> readers can be excused for thinking that "no circumstances" actually 
> meant that there were less than one circumstance :-)
> 
> I also note that the IETF home page still points to RFC 2026, with no 
> indication that "large parts of RFC 2026 are obsolete", if you click on 
> "The Internet Standards Process", so it's not like we're helping anyone.
> 
> I also noticed this week that the RFC Editor home page ALSO points 
> directly to RFC 2026 with no qualification as "The Internet Standards 
> Process"...
> 
> Has PESCI resurfaced, post-Vancouver? I still think topics like 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap-03.txt 
> matter, but process doesn't evolve itself...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pesci-discuss mailing list
> Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
> 

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss