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

Not sure if this is in-scope for PESCI or not...

I had a coversation with Brian in the Vancouver timeframe about some process 
ID (doesn't matter which), during which Brian asked me, (paraphrasing) 
"given that publishing this process document as a BCP/RFC makes it harder to 
modify, and increases the expense of publishing it at all, should we just 
publish this process document on a website and declare victory?".

We already have some process specs (including some "rfcxxxxbis" process 
specs) that look like they will live forever as drafts, including drafts on 
websites. It might be lovely to figure out how to know whether a process ID 
should be published in archival form or not, and, if not, where it SHOULD be 
published, in a consistent way.

Thanks,

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@zurich.ibm.com>

> Pekka Savola wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>> Should I do something with draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap?
>>>
>>> If it did become an agreed guide to process documents, it could
>>> well be used as a web site reference.
>>
>>
>> Maybe it could go live somewhere on the IETF web pages, in the same 
>> manner the IESG has published some other, possibly changing documents 
>> (e.g., http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html) ?
>
> That would certainly be the easiest way to keep it available as a living
> document. Comments on the current version would be most welcome.
>
>    Brian 

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