On 5/29/2013 10:36 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/29/2013 7:31 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
This doc seems more useful as a section of an update to the TAO of the
IETF. I agree with Brian that putting it forth as a separate document
may give the unintended impression that this is the formal procedure.
Nevermind that it isn't standards track or BCP and that it says quite
explicitly that it isn't normative?
Yes, nevermind that. ;-)
Just the mere fact that it's a "separate" document will somehow impart
and implication of official normativeness?
Yes, to some - especially newbies who don't know the process. Except
that's exactly whom you're trying to reach.
Consider yourself a newbie who has been told that the TAO gives all the
informal information on how the IETF works. Then you find out about this
doc. Wouldn't you wonder why it was treated separately? Was it that
important? Was it not informal enough for the TAO?
There's a lot of nuance here, but overall, I said what I meant - it
would give the *unintended* *impression* of something beyond what I
think is the goal.
Joe
