[Old-standards] Brief Procedural Proposal

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On tirsdag, november 23, 2004 20:55:04 -0600 Spencer Dawkins 
<spencer at mcsr-labs.org> wrote:

> Hi, Eliot,
>
> Thanks for setting this list up.
>
> Your proposal looks like a plan. If I understand the details, you're
> punting on actually advancing any of these standards as part of the
> de-crufting?
>
> I actually liked the possibility that we could end up with more actual
> standards, in addition to ending up with fewer cruft-standards, but as
> long as we haven't talked about the number of stops on the standards
> track since, like, Seoul, trying to figure out what might advance to
> standards levels that might or might not exist in some future 2026bis
> based on advancement criteria that might or might not have changed does
> seem premature.

That was what draft-klensin-newtrk-antiques proposed, but the author 
describes it as "having zero traction". So I thought we'd go gobble down 
the low-hanging fruit that we have WG consensus is worth catching before we 
raise our ambition level.
>
> Not to try to coordinate a loosely-coupled process or anything, but if
> you hand out starting numbers, we might not all start at RFC 1, or at RFC
> 2000 :-)
>

perl -e 'print int(rand(2000))'?
works fine for picking a random starting number :-)

                   Harald