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
