On 6/8/2010 10:20 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
At 06:59 08-06-10, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
During IESG retreat 2 weeks ago several IESG members suggested that the
WG publishes pre-evaluation documents as Informational RFCs using the
standard IETF process. I think this is a reasonable request.
I disagree. These documents are essentially a collection of notes, nothing
more. They are poorly suited for archival use,
It had forgotten to consider the question of 'archive' use. It's equally easy
to forget that Internet-Drafts remain accessible, after they have time-out. So
historians will still be able to see the process that was used.
and the effort needed to get
them into a state where they would be suitable would be better spent on other
tasks.
There is a common view -- particularly among ADs -- that producing an RFC can be
made simple and cheap and quick. While yes, it is theoretically possible, I
haven't seen it happen in practice. From an economics standpoint, the time of
the editor and other wg participants is often treated as being free, when
considering these additional tasks. I'm not saying that to be harsh or petty,
but as a comment on the way these requirements tend to develop. They are
generated by reasonable intentions, but a meaningful cost-benefit assessment is
not done, or the cost side is overly optimistic.
Personally, I am frankly delighted that anyone on the IESG considers these
worthy of archival status. But realistically, that requirement has already been
satisifed. The question, then, is what incremental benefit will be obtained
from the always-substantial effort to convert the draft to an RFC?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
