On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:16 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Perhaps we need a
>> 1-minute (physics) video, in the spirit of "A Bill is > Just Bill on
>> Capital Hill" to explain the RFC process.
>>
>> Uhm, I fat fingered the send now button. "I'm just a Bill"
>>
>> The link to go long with this is:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgVKvqTItto
> Would you propose doing that now, after the new Model has settled in
> enough that one can describe the new process (noting, in particular,
> that, in case of disputes, the RSE now has a role (and authority)
> while, in the new model, the RSCE does not unless the whole RSAB gets
> dragged in). Or would you propose to do it twice?
I think that 97% of how an internet-draft becomes an RFC will not be changing
as a result of the RSCE. If we started work on such a 3-minute video today,
it is unlikely we'd finish it prior to the new Model settling in.
I don't think that the details about disputes, etc. would even make into the video.
But, if the powers that would be paying for such a thing wanted to wait a few
months, that would be fine with me.
> And, while a Bill is Just a Bill on Capital Hill, the different
> streams, and, in practice, the different treatment of WG and non-WG and
> Informational and Experimental versus Standards Track documents in the
> IETF Stream would probably take a lot more than a minute :-)
I did rewatched Just a Bill (and the 2014 SNL spoof of it, where Executive
Orders were explained...), and I don't think that it went into any details about
the different ways that bills go through committee, or the twelve different
ways in which the bill can be filabustered. It's not important.
Ok, I bit. Here's the lyrics, should just take a few minutes for a talented vocalist to record.
I'm just a draft
==========
oof, you sure gotta complete a lot of steps to get something up on the datatracker
I wonder what that sad little scrap of HTML is?
I'm just draft, yes an Internet-Draft, and I'm sitting here under Note Well.
Well it's a long long journey to the RFC series
It's a long long wait while I'm sitting as an I-D
But I know I'll be a RFC
At least I hope and pray that it's fast, but today I am still just a draft
Gee I-D, you certainly have a lot of patience and typos
Well I got this far.
When I started I wasn't even written, I was just an idea.
Some devs back home decided they wanted a spec,
so they called their local WG chair and they said
"You're right, this ought to be an RFC"
And they sat down and issued an adoption call
And I became an adopted I-D.
And I'll remain an I-D until they decide to make me an RFC.
I'm just draft, yes an Internet-Draft, and I got as far datatracker.
Well, now I'm stuck in consesus, and I'll sit here and wait.
While the WG members discuss and debate.
Whether they should let me be an RFC.
Well I hope and pray that it's fast, but today I am still just a draft.
Listen to that WG arguing. Is all that discussion and debate about you?
Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most drafts never even get this far.
I hope they decide to report on me favourably.
Otherwise I may die.
Die?
Yeah, die in consensus.
Ooh, but it looks like I'm going to live.
Now I go to the IETF Last Call and they critique me.
If the say yes, what happens?
Then I go to the IESG and the whole thing starts all over again.
Oh no!
Oh yes.
I'm just draft, yes an I-D, and if they ballot me in IESG.
Well then, I'm off to the RFC queue.
Where I'll wait in a line.
With a lot of other drafts, for the editor to refine.
And if they AUTH48 me then I'll be an RFC.
I hope and pray that it's fast, but today I am still just a draft
You mean even if the whole IETF says you should be an RFC, the editor can still say no?
No that would be called a veto
If the RFC editor could veto, that would be a failure to separate concerns.
And by that time it would be too late to veto anyway.
It's not easy to become an RFC is it?
No!
But how I hope and pray that it's fast, but today I am still just a draft
They published you I-D, now you're an RFC.
Oh yeah!
==========
oof, you sure gotta complete a lot of steps to get something up on the datatracker
I wonder what that sad little scrap of HTML is?
I'm just draft, yes an Internet-Draft, and I'm sitting here under Note Well.
Well it's a long long journey to the RFC series
It's a long long wait while I'm sitting as an I-D
But I know I'll be a RFC
At least I hope and pray that it's fast, but today I am still just a draft
Gee I-D, you certainly have a lot of patience and typos
Well I got this far.
When I started I wasn't even written, I was just an idea.
Some devs back home decided they wanted a spec,
so they called their local WG chair and they said
"You're right, this ought to be an RFC"
And they sat down and issued an adoption call
And I became an adopted I-D.
And I'll remain an I-D until they decide to make me an RFC.
I'm just draft, yes an Internet-Draft, and I got as far datatracker.
Well, now I'm stuck in consesus, and I'll sit here and wait.
While the WG members discuss and debate.
Whether they should let me be an RFC.
Well I hope and pray that it's fast, but today I am still just a draft.
Listen to that WG arguing. Is all that discussion and debate about you?
Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most drafts never even get this far.
I hope they decide to report on me favourably.
Otherwise I may die.
Die?
Yeah, die in consensus.
Ooh, but it looks like I'm going to live.
Now I go to the IETF Last Call and they critique me.
If the say yes, what happens?
Then I go to the IESG and the whole thing starts all over again.
Oh no!
Oh yes.
I'm just draft, yes an I-D, and if they ballot me in IESG.
Well then, I'm off to the RFC queue.
Where I'll wait in a line.
With a lot of other drafts, for the editor to refine.
And if they AUTH48 me then I'll be an RFC.
I hope and pray that it's fast, but today I am still just a draft
You mean even if the whole IETF says you should be an RFC, the editor can still say no?
No that would be called a veto
If the RFC editor could veto, that would be a failure to separate concerns.
And by that time it would be too late to veto anyway.
It's not easy to become an RFC is it?
No!
But how I hope and pray that it's fast, but today I am still just a draft
They published you I-D, now you're an RFC.
Oh yeah!
Errata
=====
=====
My introduction to this Just a Bill song was via the Simpsons "I'm an amendment to be" [1], which reminded me a bit of errata, so here's also an additional bonus:
Hey, who left all this garbage in the RFC?
I'm not garbage, I'm an erratum to be, yes an erratum to be.
And I'm hoping that they'll validate me.
There's a lot of editorials in the examples
And I want to make them correct because I treat them as normative and nobody else does
but I hope and pray that they will,when it's fixed.
Can't we just fix the text directly?
No! Because that would mean that the RFCs are mutable.
But if we say they are immutable, we can store the erratum
and fix it by rewriting the RFC.
Good news erratum. They verified you. Now you'll sit in the errata page
that everyone forgets about.
Oh yeah!
Hey, who left all this garbage in the RFC?
I'm not garbage, I'm an erratum to be, yes an erratum to be.
And I'm hoping that they'll validate me.
There's a lot of editorials in the examples
And I want to make them correct because I treat them as normative and nobody else does
but I hope and pray that they will,when it's fixed.
Can't we just fix the text directly?
No! Because that would mean that the RFCs are mutable.
But if we say they are immutable, we can store the erratum
and fix it by rewriting the RFC.
Good news erratum. They verified you. Now you'll sit in the errata page
that everyone forgets about.
Oh yeah!
Cheers
Lucas
