Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
Cullen Jennings skrev: I'd like to comment as an individual on one part of our process for doing IONs. The process for publishing them has many bottlenecks and delays and we need a better way of doing it. If we decide to continue with IONs, I will provide detailed comments on issues with how we are doing them. Overall I think we would need tools so that an ION author can put a new version, reviewers could easily see the diffs from the previous version, and when the document is approved by the approving body, it gets posted and does not require manual editing of the document after it was approved. one comment... the procedure as described in the ION RFC has exactly two requirements: - that one should be able to tell who approved it, and when - that one should be able to tell the difference between a final document and a draft. I think we need to continue to have both of these properties. There's no requirement that a process exist for handling them, or even that it be consistent between IONs. The existing process is, deliberately, unconstrained by the RFC. I could argue that we might need fewer tools, not more; any tool you create increases the number of tools one has to learn in order to get one's job done. But that's part of what the experiment has been about. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
100% agree with all your points. I think we should focus on if the IONs are needed. If we determine they are, then we can discuss things we learned about the tooling and how to do it better. Cullen with my individual contributor hat on On Feb 6, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: - that one should be able to tell who approved it, and when - that one should be able to tell the difference between a final document and a draft. I think we need to continue to have both of these properties. There's no requirement that a process exist for handling them, or even that it be consistent between IONs. The existing process is, deliberately, unconstrained by the RFC. I could argue that we might need fewer tools, not more; any tool you create increases the number of tools one has to learn in order to get one's job done. But that's part of what the experiment has been about. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
Cullen Jennings skrev: I'd like to comment as an individual on one part of our process for doing IONs. The process for publishing them has many bottlenecks and delays and we need a better way of doing it. If we decide to continue with IONs, I will provide detailed comments on issues with how we are doing them. Overall I think we would need tools so that an ION author can put a new version, reviewers could easily see the diffs from the previous version, and when the document is approved by the approving body, it gets posted and does not require manual editing of the document after it was approved. one comment... the procedure as described in the ION RFC has exactly two requirements: - that one should be able to tell who approved it, and when - that one should be able to tell the difference between a final document and a draft. I think we need to continue to have both of these properties. There's no requirement that a process exist for handling them, or even that it be consistent between IONs. The existing process is, deliberately, unconstrained by the RFC. I could argue that we might need fewer tools, not more; any tool you create increases the number of tools one has to learn in order to get one's job done. But that's part of what the experiment has been about. Harald ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2008-01-30 10:35, Cullen Jennings wrote: The process for publishing them has many bottlenecks and delays... I couldn't agree more... perhaps people should focus on whether the class of documents available at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions.html is useful, not on the mechanics of writing and posting them. I firmly believe these are useful, and that given more time we'll fill in some of the gaps. (I most sincerely hope the IESG isn't even considering discarding the IONs we already have.) I'd like to suggest that many of the RFC2026 diffs that Brian put in his Internet Draft might be put in IONs, to the extent they merely document current practice which already reflects IESG consensus. (Running those through a WG process seems pointless...) -- John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
I'd like to comment as an individual on one part of our process for doing IONs. The process for publishing them has many bottlenecks and delays and we need a better way of doing it. If we decide to continue with IONs, I will provide detailed comments on issues with how we are doing them. Overall I think we would need tools so that an ION author can put a new version, reviewers could easily see the diffs from the previous version, and when the document is approved by the approving body, it gets posted and does not require manual editing of the document after it was approved. On Jan 16, 2008, at 11:41 AM, The IESG wrote: RFC 4693, Section 4 says: This experiment is expected to run for a period of 12 months, starting from the date of the first ION published using this mechanism. At the end of the period, the IESG should issue a call for comments from the community, asking for people to state their agreement to one of the following statements (or a suitable reformulation thereof): According to http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ the first ION was published 12-Jan-2007. This means the experiment ended last Saturday, and it's time for the IESG to issue the call for comments. Please tell us what you think about the experiment. Have IONs been valuable? Should we continue to make use of this mechanism? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
On 2008-01-30 10:35, Cullen Jennings wrote: I'd like to comment as an individual on one part of our process for doing IONs. The process for publishing them has many bottlenecks and delays and we need a better way of doing it. If we decide to continue with IONs, I will provide detailed comments on issues with how we are doing them. Overall I think we would need tools so that an ION author can put a new version, reviewers could easily see the diffs from the previous version, and when the document is approved by the approving body, it gets posted and does not require manual editing of the document after it was approved. I couldn't agree more (having worked with Cullen and others to set up the current string and sealing wax we use for IONs). So perhaps people should focus on whether the class of documents available at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions.html is useful, not on the mechanics of writing and posting them. Brian On Jan 16, 2008, at 11:41 AM, The IESG wrote: RFC 4693, Section 4 says: This experiment is expected to run for a period of 12 months, starting from the date of the first ION published using this mechanism. At the end of the period, the IESG should issue a call for comments from the community, asking for people to state their agreement to one of the following statements (or a suitable reformulation thereof): According to http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ the first ION was published 12-Jan-2007. This means the experiment ended last Saturday, and it's time for the IESG to issue the call for comments. Please tell us what you think about the experiment. Have IONs been valuable? Should we continue to make use of this mechanism? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
Inline Tom Petch - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:24 PM Subject: RE: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment While there are a couple of IONs whose content I find valuable (such as ad-sponsoring and discuss-criteria), IMHO the same information could be placed in ordinary web pages without losing much -- and perhaps gaining something in the process. Currently, we have similar information scattered over random web pages on ietf.org, random pages in IESG wiki, and the IONs (with different procedures and tools for updating them). tp I agree that the information is scattered and as such is a barrier to people joining in and contributing. I see a parallel with 'Finding Information' where what struck me most was the diversity of response, how many different avenues may or may not bring an answer to the question (and I saw no mention there of the Tao). I think this scatter - grown like Topsy I would call it - is a significant impediment to getting people involved with the IETF. So keep it simple, use the RFC process(es) and the web site (in serious need of redesign), and scrap IONs Tom Petch My reading between the lines interpretation of RFC 4693 Section 5 is that perhaps creating IONs was considered easier than e.g. fixing the procedures and tools for maintaining ordinary ietf.org web pages. (This may well have been correct, BTW -- but perhaps the secretariat transition will bring some new efforts to update www.ietf.org as well?) But looking forward, and considering the question what should be done about IONs, the answer is less clear. If IONs encourage people to clearly document things that are useful to others, then they have some value there. Maybe - and this is just an unsupported hypothesis - folks at IETF are more comfortable (or efficient, or motivated) with writing things that are called documents rather than web pages (even when there's no difference in actual content). And moving the same information to ordinary web pages would probably mean creating some sort of structure (e.g. header for distinguishing draft and approved versions with some kind of standard header) and processes (for e.g. approval). However, how to organize web pages is a topic where I think micromanagement (from e.g. me) would not be very productive. If useful information gets communicated in effective fashion, I'm OK with letting the IESG to choose the tools they use for maintaining things on the web, and don't really mind whether they get called IONs, wikis, or just web pages. Best regards, Pasi -Original Message- From: ext The IESG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 January, 2008 21:41 To: IETF Announcement list Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment RFC 4693, Section 4 says: This experiment is expected to run for a period of 12 months, starting from the date of the first ION published using this mechanism. At the end of the period, the IESG should issue a call for comments from the community, asking for people to state their agreement to one of the following statements (or a suitable reformulation thereof): According to http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ the first ION was published 12-Jan-2007. This means the experiment ended last Saturday, and it's time for the IESG to issue the call for comments. Please tell us what you think about the experiment. Have IONs been valuable? Should we continue to make use of this mechanism? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
While there are a couple of IONs whose content I find valuable (such as ad-sponsoring and discuss-criteria), IMHO the same information could be placed in ordinary web pages without losing much -- and perhaps gaining something in the process. Currently, we have similar information scattered over random web pages on ietf.org, random pages in IESG wiki, and the IONs (with different procedures and tools for updating them). My reading between the lines interpretation of RFC 4693 Section 5 is that perhaps creating IONs was considered easier than e.g. fixing the procedures and tools for maintaining ordinary ietf.org web pages. (This may well have been correct, BTW -- but perhaps the secretariat transition will bring some new efforts to update www.ietf.org as well?) But looking forward, and considering the question what should be done about IONs, the answer is less clear. If IONs encourage people to clearly document things that are useful to others, then they have some value there. Maybe - and this is just an unsupported hypothesis - folks at IETF are more comfortable (or efficient, or motivated) with writing things that are called documents rather than web pages (even when there's no difference in actual content). And moving the same information to ordinary web pages would probably mean creating some sort of structure (e.g. header for distinguishing draft and approved versions with some kind of standard header) and processes (for e.g. approval). However, how to organize web pages is a topic where I think micromanagement (from e.g. me) would not be very productive. If useful information gets communicated in effective fashion, I'm OK with letting the IESG to choose the tools they use for maintaining things on the web, and don't really mind whether they get called IONs, wikis, or just web pages. Best regards, Pasi -Original Message- From: ext The IESG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 January, 2008 21:41 To: IETF Announcement list Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment RFC 4693, Section 4 says: This experiment is expected to run for a period of 12 months, starting from the date of the first ION published using this mechanism. At the end of the period, the IESG should issue a call for comments from the community, asking for people to state their agreement to one of the following statements (or a suitable reformulation thereof): According to http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ the first ION was published 12-Jan-2007. This means the experiment ended last Saturday, and it's time for the IESG to issue the call for comments. Please tell us what you think about the experiment. Have IONs been valuable? Should we continue to make use of this mechanism? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 02:24:34PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 66 lines which said: My reading between the lines interpretation of RFC 4693 Section 5 is that perhaps creating IONs was considered easier than e.g. fixing the procedures and tools for maintaining ordinary ietf.org web pages. That's not my reading at all. This section explains clearly the problem with Web pages: Web pages, which can be changed without notice, provide very little ability to track changes, and have no formal standing -- confusion is often seen about who has the right to update them, what the process for updating them is, and so on. It is hard when looking at a Web page to see whether this is a current procedure, a procedure introduced and abandoned, or a draft of a future procedure. ... o Unlike Web pages, there is an explicit mechanism for finding all current versions, and a mechanism for tracking the history of a document. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 02:24:34PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 66 lines which said: My reading between the lines interpretation of RFC 4693 Section 5 is that perhaps creating IONs was considered easier than e.g. fixing the procedures and tools for maintaining ordinary ietf.org web pages. That's not my reading at all. This section explains clearly the problem with Web pages: Web pages, which can be changed without notice, provide very little ability to track changes, and have no formal standing -- confusion is often seen about who has the right to update them, what the process for updating them is, and so on. It is hard when looking at a Web page to see whether this is a current procedure, a procedure introduced and abandoned, or a draft of a future procedure. ... o Unlike Web pages, there is an explicit mechanism for finding all current versions, and a mechanism for tracking the history of a document. Many web page management systems (such as wiki engines) have reasonably good mechanisms for tracking the history of web pages. And similar processes for updating them (and status line at the beginning of page) could be applied for any pages, so this does not really explain why they had to be kept separate (and called differently) from ordinary web pages. (I've heard rumors that at the time when RFC 4693 was written, updating www.ietf.org web pages meant emailing your text to the secretariat staff, who then edited the actual pages more or less manually. This kind of system would easily explain why www.ietf.org is a mess... and IONs would certainly be an improvement over that.) Best regards, Pasi ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
I get the feeling that most critics of IONs are missing the point: that IONs are intended to be a bit more lightweight than RFCs -- but not a lot -- and easier to index. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While there are a couple of IONs whose content I find valuable (such as ad-sponsoring and discuss-criteria), IMHO the same information could be placed in ordinary web pages without losing much -- and perhaps gaining something in the process. Indeed, the same information could -- and probably should -- be placed on ordinary web pages, in a somewhat simplified form, referring to the appropriate ION as the reference source. And those web pages should be _really_easy_ to update if anything within them proves to be confusing to the actual readers. But the ION update process should be reserved for cases where the substance is misleading. We _really_don't_ want the IESG to be forced to review all changes to web pages. ... My reading between the lines interpretation of RFC 4693 Section 5 is that perhaps creating IONs was considered easier than... I see no need to read between the lines. RFC 4693 set out principles for an appropriate process for maintaining notes on operational procedures. But looking forward, and considering the question what should be done about IONs, the answer is less clear. If IONs encourage people to clearly document things that are useful to others, then they have some value there. I agree. ... moving the same information to ordinary web pages would probably mean creating some sort of structure... This is the path we should avoid. Web page maintenance stalls _very_ easily when there are too many folks worrying over the interpretation of every word -- in different browsers, no less! However, how to organize web pages is a topic where I think micromanagement (from e.g. me) would not be very productive. If useful information gets communicated in effective fashion, I'm OK with letting the IESG to choose the tools they use for maintaining things on the web, and don't really mind whether they get called IONs, wikis, or just web pages. Sounds like we agree a lot more than we disagree... -- John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
On Jan 17, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Just as a reminder, the idea was to have something *easier and cheaper* than RFCs but more organized than arbitrary web pages. Fred might note that cheaper with his IAOC hat on ;-). I do indeed. That said, I'm paying for the RFC Editor's office anyway, so not asking them to work on a specific document doesn't necessarily save me money - what would save money is not having them work on a large subset of documents. From my perspective, what is costly in RFC development is the amount of time it takes and the hoops one jumps through to do and to respond to review. It doesn't cost money per se, but it costs time, and in my wallet time is more valuable. heresy If you really want to argue that IONs are of value in the sense of not having the RFC editor edit and publish them, the question we want to ask is what the quality of an ION's English grammar (perhaps the RFC Editor's biggest value-add) and how does it compare to that of an RFC? If an RFC is not noticeably better, do we need the RFC Editor's office AT ALL? /heresy Personally, that is a consideration I want to make very carefully; the amount of work the RFC Editor puts into an RFC varies quite a bit (something about the grammar skills of its author), and some documents really benefit from the process. If we were to decide we didn't need the RFC Editor any more, I would expect the IAOC to make consultative editorial services available to working groups so that documents headed to the IESG had already been through that process. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
RFC 4693, Section 4 says: This experiment is expected to run for a period of 12 months, starting from the date of the first ION published using this mechanism. At the end of the period, the IESG should issue a call for comments from the community, asking for people to state their agreement to one of the following statements (or a suitable reformulation thereof): According to http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ the first ION was published 12-Jan-2007. This means the experiment ended last Saturday, and it's time for the IESG to issue the call for comments. Please tell us what you think about the experiment. Have IONs been valuable? Should we continue to make use of this mechanism? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
I have to agree with Fred here: On Jan 17, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Fred Baker wrote: I would argue that (1) has not been shown. Several IONs have been produced, but I don't see people referring to them. It looks like it is being treated as a lightweight way to publish something a lot like an RFC, and I'm not sure why the proper response to our present situation shouldn't be to figure out what we once had - a lightweight way to publish an RFC. I've been on various IETF mailing lists for a year or two now and I've never seen any reference to these ION documents. Obviously there must have been and I must have missed it... but I've not had other people point me to them, either. For instance, at IETF 70, I agreed to take minutes for one of the sessions and when I asked if there was any preferred format, no one pointed me to this ION: http:// www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-agenda-and-minutes.html Have now learned of them by this email exchange, some of the documents look both interesting and useful, but I'd agree with Fred that in order to call the series successful there really need to be more people pointing to them and using them. My 2 cents, Dan -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTOVoxeo Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Bring your web applications to the phone. Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
On 2008-01-18 08:33, Dan York wrote: I have to agree with Fred here: On Jan 17, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Fred Baker wrote: I would argue that (1) has not been shown. Several IONs have been produced, but I don't see people referring to them. It looks like it is being treated as a lightweight way to publish something a lot like an RFC, and I'm not sure why the proper response to our present situation shouldn't be to figure out what we once had - a lightweight way to publish an RFC. I've been on various IETF mailing lists for a year or two now and I've never seen any reference to these ION documents. Obviously there must have been and I must have missed it... but I've not had other people point me to them, either. For instance, at IETF 70, I agreed to take minutes for one of the sessions and when I asked if there was any preferred format, no one pointed me to this ION: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-agenda-and-minutes.html Have now learned of them by this email exchange, some of the documents look both interesting and useful, but I'd agree with Fred that in order to call the series successful there really need to be more people pointing to them and using them. That's undoubtedly true - in fact they would need to be the normal way we post procedural stuff to the web site (i.e. things like http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html should be IONs). If we are to make IONs permanent, I'd want to see them better integrated in the web site as a whole, rather than being hidden in a corner at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions.html. Just as a reminder, the idea was to have something *easier and cheaper* than RFCs but more organized than arbitrary web pages. Fred might note that cheaper with his IAOC hat on ;-). Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
Harald: This is my reservation as well. The ION process has not been as light-weight as I would like. Frankly, it is easier to generate an IESG Statement than an ION. Russ At 05:27 PM 1/17/2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Being the RFC author, I'm naturally very much interested. still, I'll observe that the procedure that seemed most important to me, which was getting new versions out whenever they were needed, has been exercised exactly once: in http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/dated/, the only document in 2 versions is Brian's procdocs document. So the 3rd option in the evaluation process: 3. We cannot decide yet; the experiment should continue might be an option to seriously consider. (This of course has some disadvantages - for instance, we have discovered that we can't write text into a BCP that says the information about X is to be published as an ION before IONs are permanent. But perfection seems to escape us every time) Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
Being the RFC author, I'm naturally very much interested. still, I'll observe that the procedure that seemed most important to me, which was getting new versions out whenever they were needed, has been exercised exactly once: in http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/dated/, the only document in 2 versions is Brian's procdocs document. So the 3rd option in the evaluation process: 3. We cannot decide yet; the experiment should continue might be an option to seriously consider. (This of course has some disadvantages - for instance, we have discovered that we can't write text into a BCP that says the information about X is to be published as an ION before IONs are permanent. But perfection seems to escape us every time) Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
The IESG wrote: Have IONs been valuable? Should we continue to make use of this mechanism? Yes and yes. I like them even better if they are published in a plain text format similar to Internet-Drafts. The IETF tool rfcmarkup can produce sound HTML and diffs for I-Ds. Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
On 2008-01-17 09:30, Frank Ellermann wrote: The IESG wrote: Have IONs been valuable? Should we continue to make use of this mechanism? Yes and yes. I'm biased, having helped to start this experiment, but my only criticism is that we haven't made enough use of it (i.e. there are a number of IETF procedural documents that are ripe for republishing as IONs). So, +1 for yes and yes. I like them even better if they are published in a plain text format similar to Internet-Drafts. The IETF tool rfcmarkup can produce sound HTML and diffs for I-Ds. There are two formats allowed for IONS - html and plain text (but not both for the same document). However, almost all of those published so far previously existed as xml2rfc source, so they've been IONized and htmlized using xml2rfc. If you value the hyperlinks (which I do, especially in a case like http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-procdocs.html), it seems more logical to use xml2rfc than to have rfcmarkup guess the links. In the interests of science, I processed ion-procdocs through xml2rfc to plain text. The result is at http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/ion-procdocs.txt (There is one very minor formatting glitch that I didn't debug.) Then I processed the txt through rfcmarkup: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/ion-procdocs-rfcmarkup.htm It would be interesting to know which of the above three versions people prefer. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
Brian E Carpenter wrote: It would be interesting to know which of the above three versions people prefer. Yes. http://tools.ietf.org/html/ion-procdocs is what you have as rfcmarkup, I knew this because I link to it on a tools fan page :-) I'm now using popular browsers, the direct xml2rfc HTML output is nice, but with an old browser (no CSS) it's horrible. Disable CSS to see what I mean. Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
Dear IESG, The call for comments didn't include a destination for those comments, but since people are already responding on-list, I agree with Brian. My only suggestion is to use IONs more frequently. I hope that the upcoming successful BOF RFC is also published as an ION, for example, because I hope that there will be updates that reflect the recently-approved RFC 5111 (Experiment in Exploratory Group Formation within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)). Thanks, Spencer On 2008-01-17 09:30, Frank Ellermann wrote: The IESG wrote: Have IONs been valuable? Should we continue to make use of this mechanism? Yes and yes. I'm biased, having helped to start this experiment, but my only criticism is that we haven't made enough use of it (i.e. there are a number of IETF procedural documents that are ripe for republishing as IONs). So, +1 for yes and yes. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Call for Comment: RFC 4693 experiment
RFC 4693, Section 4 says: This experiment is expected to run for a period of 12 months, starting from the date of the first ION published using this mechanism. At the end of the period, the IESG should issue a call for comments from the community, asking for people to state their agreement to one of the following statements (or a suitable reformulation thereof): According to http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ the first ION was published 12-Jan-2007. This means the experiment ended last Saturday, and it's time for the IESG to issue the call for comments. Please tell us what you think about the experiment. Have IONs been valuable? Should we continue to make use of this mechanism? ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
