Subject: Re: [newtrk] new cruft draft due out today or tomorrow

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:25:43 +0300 (EEST)

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Tony Hansen wrote:
> Consider how we move protocol documents FORWARD in the standards track.
> 
>    2)	Sometimes we just recategorize an RFC.
> 
> However we DON'T publish:
> 
>     *	The reasons we think the RFC can be moved forward.
> 	These are discussed in mailing lists, which are usually archived
> 	somewhere.

I think this is a slightly different situation.  When moving document
forward, without even touching the document itself (which would then
include change history and some other tidbits on why there were
changes), we have to assume that the document is pretty close to 'good
enough' (or dare I say, 'perfect') already.  It should be obvious that
such a document could go forward.

On the other hand, removing stuff completely from the standards track
has much graver implications.  It says this particular direction was
sometimes (or even often) results in many vendors to starting to
remove said features from their products, unless actively used by
their customer base.

> Do we need to publish yet another RFC just to say why we're changing the 
> status of that RFC? Absolutely NOT.

This is the process today, but later it could be 'publish yet another 
RFC to change the status of 100 RFCs'.  That doesn't seem to be a bad 
tradeoff to me..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:10:34 -0400

> remove said features from their products, unless actively used by

I feel that this argument is a red herring.

This is true NO MATTER HOW we go about downgrading a standard, whether 
we publish an RFC or whether we publish information somewhere else or 
whether we bypass publishing anything.

> RFC to change the status of 100 RFCs'.  That doesn't seem to be a bad 

And what does newtrk seek to do, but come up with BETTER processes?

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]
.