Subject: [Gen-art] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-doria-genart-experience-01.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:37:43 +0100

So, team, what should we do with this draft?

1. Process it as an Informational RFC, which would mean
further polishing (and one of us would have to review it :-).

2. Simply post it at the gen-art site as a Web page.

[Hint from Bill Fenner:

   <?rfc private="I-D Guidelines"?>
   <?rfc topblock="yes"?>

   The first gets rid of all the I-D boilerplate, the 2nd puts back
   the author info block at the top of the document.]

       Brian

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:44:03 +0000

> further polishing (and one of us would have to review it :-).

Yes

> 2. Simply post it at the gen-art site as a Web page.

Sure, and then revise as (1) progresses.

Time schedule?

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:57:03 -0800

Hi, Brian,

At last week's meeting, at some point during the week, you and I had a chat 
about "why do we need to publish process BCPs as RFCs at all, because it 
ossifies our process and costs dollars for RFC-Editor cycles and queue 
space?" (I am paraphrasing, but I thought that's what I heard).

(1) is the obvious right answer, if we're still publishing process BCPs as 
RFCs. (2) has many advantages, along with the major disadvantage that no one 
in the community is good at finding process BCPs that AREN'T published as 
RFCs.

Can we figure out "at the gen-art site as a Web page" in a tiny bit more 
detail, before making a decision? "Some random Web page on some random 
website" does NOT work for me, but that's not to say that publishing on a 
Web page couldn't be made to work for me.

Spencer

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:30:15 +0100

I suggest that we need a short home page above
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/review-guidelines.html
and we could hang the experience document off that.

I have a pointer to Gen-ART at http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/

     Brian

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Hi, Brian,
> 
> At last week's meeting, at some point during the week, you and I had a 
> chat about "why do we need to publish process BCPs as RFCs at all, 
> because it ossifies our process and costs dollars for RFC-Editor cycles 
> and queue space?" (I am paraphrasing, but I thought that's what I heard).
> 
> (1) is the obvious right answer, if we're still publishing process BCPs 
> as RFCs. (2) has many advantages, along with the major disadvantage that 
> no one in the community is good at finding process BCPs that AREN'T 
> published as RFCs.
> 
> website" does NOT work for me, but that's not to say that publishing on 
> a Web page couldn't be made to work for me.
> 
> Spencer
> 
>