Subject: [I2nsf] Document status and publication[ Was: Working Group document adoption]

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:06:44 -0000

Replying to Dan's top-of thread post...

> I support the adoption, but:
> 
> - if the WG consensus is to go ahead with two documents, and this consensus is
> blessed by the AD, then we should split the milestones as well

Yup. I can do that bit of house-keeping.

Wrt the discussion of publish as an RFC or not, the charter is pretty clear. For
now it will be helpful for the WG to have an "official" place where we document
our thoughts and ideas. Once we start to work on the protocol we may find that
we no longer need this material, or we may consider it a fundamental foundation
that we want archived in a published form. We'll know what we think when we get
further down the line, and it isn't a decision we need to (or can) make at the
moment.

> - both documents were published with the intended status of 'Standards track'
> which is odd for Use Cases and Problem Statement ,as well as for Gap Analysis
> documents. Unless there is a good justification (which I am interested to
hear) I
> suggest that they are adopted with the intended status of Informational

Well, I-Ds aren't published they are posted. RFCs are published.
I think you're right that if these become RFCs they will be Informational.
That's something we can handle along the way.

Many thanks,
Adrian
--
Celebrate the New Year by buying someone you love a book.
Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales
http://www.feedaread.com/books/Tales-from-the-Wood-9781786100924.aspx
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924
Or buy from me direct.