Subject: Re: When to adopt a WG I-D

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:03:50 -0700

On 5/30/2013 7:59 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 29, 2013, at 11:53 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> I can also see potential for adding some info to the Tao, but the danger there is that document becomes too big and too detailed to be of use.
>
> Many would claim it already is. We discussed that here a few years ago, and informally decided "too long" was better than "too short and with a lot of pointers to other documents that needed to be read".
>
>> Is this a tutorial?
>
> Mainly. To quote...
>
>       NOTE:    This draft is intentionally non-normative.  It is meant as a
>       guide to common practice, rather than as a formal definition of
>       what is permissible.
>
> Proposal: maybe don't do this as an Internet Draft, but do it as a tutorial.

Or in the TAO, which is fairly clearly non-normative even when issued as 
an RFC.

:-)

Joe