Subject: RE: [newtrk] a crufty last call

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:59:22 +0200

I agree with Eliot, YES we should do this!

/L-E

> Um, Yes?
> 
> For the following reasons:
> 
>   - WGs don't stay around to clear out the cruft
>   - Some ideas turn out to be bad
>   - the IESG needs to allow for the fact that some ideas will
>     turn out to be bad ideas
>   - we need a light weight way to deal with ideas that have in fact
>     turned out to be bad, as determined by lack of implementation
>     or deployment
>   - We say that this is how things should work in 2026 but it's not
>     how they work
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:16:55 -0700

No.

I think that we can live with the current model. I also think that the
normal way to "obsolete" a specification is to write a new one, that
solves the original problem in the better way. Designing a better
mousetrap is something the IETF is good at, and it is a positive
experience. Determining consensus that something is not needed is a
negative process, the IETF is not very good at it, and the cost probably
exceeds the benefits.

-- Christian Huitema

.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:58:02 +0300

Margaret,

> I'll go against the grain with a "no" vote.
> 
> I am not against the idea of moving documents that shouldn't be on 
> the standards track to Historic, but I don't see any reason why we 
> need a WG to develop processes to do that.  Nor do I understand why 
> we need an officially constituted committee.
> 
> It is my opinion that if the main advocates of this work had chosen 
> to spend their time and effort doing the actual work of moving crufty 
> drafts to Historic instead of arguing about an official "procedure" 
> for doing it, we'd be done now.

If we followed the rules in 2026 about moving things to be historic,
we'd be done now.  If we are making a new standards track, I think
making sure that what the current defined standards track procedure
and what we actually do needs to be alligned.  I've always understood
that the 'crufty' draft is an attempt to reconcile this & I think it
is part of the newtrk work.

John

.