Subject: [newtrk] grouch's question

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:07:04 -0400 (EDT)

The Grouch (that Mr. The Grouch to us) asked:
> - why the name? why not draft-newtrk-proposals?

it seems to me that it would be good to have the next revision of
draft-black-newtrk-proposals as a working group document - I'm
not sure that it will evolve into the formal "new standards track"
RFC called for in the WG milestones but having this as a WG document
will make it easier for people to find and since David & Brian are
about to update it based on the WG discussions it seems like the
right thing to do.

does anyone object?  (if so, why?)

Scott
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:02:33 -0400

> does anyone object?  (if so, why?)

the only problem I have with it being a working group document is that I
see it as a tool to aid discussion in progress, one that doesn't ever
need to be formally published, and one that might should even be
abandoned after it has served its useful purpose.  working groups often
feel a compulsion to "finish" their documents and publish them as RFCs.
sometimes that is counterproductive.  

I have no trouble with this document being labeled draft-ietf-newtrk-*
so that people can more easily find it.

--
Regime change 2004 - For great justice.
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html