Stephane, On 2008-04-22 03:04, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 09:41:33PM +0300, > Hannes Tschofenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 46 lines which said: > >> Rather than providing these types of summaries it would make more >> sense to provide a conclusion of the individual discussions. This, >> btw, often does not happen in working groups either. As a consequent >> nobody knows (after a long discussion) whether there was a >> conclusion or what the conclusion could have been. > > Before trying to summarize the (very open) discussions on the IETF > general mailing list, a good start would be to summarize IESG > evaluations... I would be interested to know, for instance, why > draft-ietf-mboned-addrarch or draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation > were not approved by IESG (there is certainly a good reason, but to > extract it from datatracker is not obvious).
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation/comment/62414/ seems pretty clear to me; you might disagree, but that's another matter. However, what you say is why the IESG started its narrative minutes at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/iesg-narrative.shtml but they depend on volunteer effort. I find them useful. Brian _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
