Re: [Raw] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-raw-00-02: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Álvaro, it might be that the working group would like the option of
"publishing" documents containing background and working-group musings
(perhaps lists of use cases and the like) only in github or only on a
wiki, and not as I-Ds.  I interpreted that as where the referenced
text was going.

Barry

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 6:30 PM Alvaro Retana via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-raw-00-02: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-raw/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I support the first part of Alissa's BLOCK.
>
> This may be a nit, but I still find this sentence a little confusing:
> "Additional documents may be published or exist on a git repository, the
> publication format will be agreed by the Working Group at the time the document
> is adopted by the group."
>
> The fact that the milestones point at RFCs seems to clarify the meaning of
> "published"; but the alternative to an RFC ("published") is more akin to a
> draft and not a document that exists in an external repository only.  IOW, I
> would hope that if additional documents exist, that they do so either as an
> internet-draft or an RFC.  This state is independent of the tools used for its
> development.
>
>