Point-by-point responses (was: Re: Protocol-00)

[John C Klensin]

Thanks for the offer, but IETF rules, at least as I understand
them, still require that specific, numbered, drafts exist as
I-Ds which, in turn, perform checkpoint and benchmark functions.
And I have responsibility, as editor, to maintain a change
control process.  Neither is consistent with a wiki-like model.

     john


--On Friday, 23 May, 2008 11:02 +0200 JFC Morfin
<jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> At 06:17 23/05/2008, John C Klensin wrote:
>> If it seems wise to Vint, we can move to an environment in
>> which we are using an issue tracker, with specific
>> requirements for defining and creating issues.
> 
> I manually put one or two of your documents on my personnal
> (closed) working wiki. I am sure that if I was doing it again
> with your new version History would mark many changes that are
> not changes; just because of the manual process. However,
> since the real issue for  this WG is to work on the text of
> the existing drafts, why not to use http://wikidna.org.
> 
> I have no problem spending a few hours to port the current
> Drafts in wiki format and giving passwords to the authors.
> This way changes could be seen immediatly, without having to
> wait for a new draft.
> 
> I am considering updating my own draft formating program to
> use the wiki input as its textual basis (this is not done yet,
> but I need it). So, there would be no problem to get the
> Drafts prepared from the current status of the wiki ?
> jfc
> 
> 
> 
> 
>