Subject: Re: Decruft schedule (Re: [newtrk] updated newtrk agenda)

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 08:24:55 -0500 (EST)

Spencer sez:
  p.s. My impression of NEWTRK progress to date is that we have 
  addressed important and useful topics, but that we still haven't taken 
  a serious swing at an update to 2026

that is true - I've not been pushing that because I think that 
moving forward with something like
draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd-00.txt would significantally change
the issue - i.e., if IETF technology is defined by a ISD document
rather than the status on individual RFCs then the status on the
individual RFCs becomes less important as do the specific details
on how RFCs change status.

please do read the above ID on the ISD idea and the following example ISDs 
before the meeting so we can have a serious discussion on the idea

draft-ietf-newtrk-sample-isd-stdproc-00.txt
draft-ietf-newtrk-sample-isd-00.txt

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

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 19:05:09 -0600

Hi, Scott,

> on how RFCs change status.

And I agree with this strategy - in case it wasn't obvious, my comment 
isn't meant as criticism. My point is that "we" (not "Scott") aren't 
going to be finished with the issue until sometime after "we" start 
working on it!

See you in DC,

Spencer 

.