> On 30/03/2022, at 8:43 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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.) Do you mean https://github.com/ietf/tao ? Jay > > >> >> > 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 =- >> >> >> > -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-director@xxxxxxxx
