I suggest that we need a short home page above
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/review-guidelines.html
and we could hang the experience document off that.
I have a pointer to Gen-ART at http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/
Brian
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Brian,
At last week's meeting, at some point during the week, you and I had a
chat about "why do we need to publish process BCPs as RFCs at all,
because it ossifies our process and costs dollars for RFC-Editor cycles
and queue space?" (I am paraphrasing, but I thought that's what I heard).
(1) is the obvious right answer, if we're still publishing process BCPs
as RFCs. (2) has many advantages, along with the major disadvantage that
no one in the community is good at finding process BCPs that AREN'T
published as RFCs.
Can we figure out "at the gen-art site as a Web page" in a tiny bit more
detail, before making a decision? "Some random Web page on some random
website" does NOT work for me, but that's not to say that publishing on
a Web page couldn't be made to work for me.
Spencer
So, team, what should we do with this draft?
1. Process it as an Informational RFC, which would mean
further polishing (and one of us would have to review it :-).
2. Simply post it at the gen-art site as a Web page.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
