On 3/22/22 14:24, Michael Richardson wrote:
John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I actually don't think it interacts much with 2026 although I do wonder
It's not so much that it interacts with 2026,etc. so much as that those
documents are wrong.
RFC 2026 is from 1996, given its extreme age I'd say that it has
weathered surprisingly well.
In my opinion, stuff like HotRFC or *DISPATCH WGs doesn't need to - and
*shouldn't* - be embedded in procedure documents. They belong in
Tao-type Web pages that can - and will - be changed on a weekly or
monthly basis.
Formal rules, embedded in the "stone" of BCPs, should be the absolute
minimum we need to function, and change rarely.
(I have a bee in my bonnet about those Web page changes being trackable
as to what they changed and who authorized the change - but no more
formal than putting the sources in a Git-accessible repo would
accomplish. Different discussion.)
> is contributing to general delays and some people's sense that it is
> impossible to get real work done in the IETF in any efficient and
> timely way.
I would say that it's contributing to a sense that people don't know what the
flavour of the day is.
> While, as work-proposing mechanisms, the tone is certainly different
> (especially along the fear of being attacked dimension you mention),
> I'm not sure whether HotRFC is significantly different from the BarBOFs
> of yesteryear.
Actual BarBOFs, in bars with napkins and beer (and no remote things to get in
the way), would be before HotRFC :-)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
