gmane.ietf.newtrk

A question and proposal for draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft

Mykyta Yevstifeyev — 2011-03-25T06:08:08

Hello Harald and Eliot,

{Also copying this to NEWTRK mailing list}

I've recently looked at you Internet-Draft draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft 
(http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt).  At the time 
when you worked on it I, unfortunately, wasn't at IETF and could not 
witness what was happening then. As far as I can see, this draft was 
issued nearly 1.5 year before WG conclusion. I also see this document 
was discussed at IETF 61th meeting, but I can't find any mention of it 
at further meetings.Therefore, I'd like to ask what happened that this 
draft did not move forward and expired?  Could you please give me a 
short insight in that events?

Moreover, I'd like to propose conducting the process experiment per RFC 
3933 on the procedures defined in this draft; personally for me they 
seem interesting.  What do you think about such idea?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
_______________________________________________
NEWTRK mailing list
NEWTRK< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/newtrk

Re: An updated ISD proposal

Douglas Otis — 2010-07-15T17:38:14

It should not be surprising to find that I support the first option, as 
did many within the Newtrk WG at the time.
  ,---
The first approach is to treat the ISDs as a light-weight replacement
for the three-level standards track.  The goal would be to make ISDs
very simple; minimize text in the document and make an ISD little more
than a collection of links and metadata. This would, in effect, give
IETF blessing to the realities that the Internet runs mainly on
Proposed Standards and that the STD series has failed as a
citation series.
'---

In the days of the Internet explosion, many proclaimed one year of 
Internet Time was equivalent to seven in other endeavors, and that 
anything publish in a book is out-dated.  The Internet has made 
newspaper's daily reporting seem like yesterday's news, which it is of 
course.  The IETF is holding the tail of a tiger racing through a 
jungle.  The weighty ISD, as opposed to the SRD approach, assumes this 
tiger slows down, and that it can be guided by intricate pictur

Re: An updated ISD proposal

Brian E Carpenter — 2010-07-15T03:02:31

Let's see if that old newtrk list is still there...

As I was in 2005 (believe it or not), I am still generally sympathetic to
the ISD concept. The concerns expressed in 2005 by the IESG were quite
wordy, but they were basically about a perception of increased
complexity and added (bureaucratic) workload. See
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/newtrk/current/msg00991.html

So, I guess the question is whether the updated proposal responds
to those points. It does clearly put the *responsibility* for the
ISD series on the IESG, as part of its standards-approving role.
That's reasonable, but what about workload?

I think we could minimise and distribute the job of collating the
information for a new or updated ISD by placing the responsibility
for *drafting* the ISD explicitly on the document shepherd. That
would automatically distribute the workload to the people best placed
to execute it.  As John notes in the draft, the information needed is
already there, in WG email and minutes, in most cases. So collati