|
+1 – Robert’s suggestion would really help to clarify the aim of this statement – Actually, Robert’s suggestion was the same one made on the 2016 version: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/support-documents-2016-11-13/ (maybe I need another cup of coffee but I’m failing to see the difference between the two statements – it would be helpful to state why this was redone – was there something recently of concern?) For newcomers, there’s a lot of history on this discussion, including as many of us remember, the RFC++ BoF at IETF102 (2018): https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/minutes-102-rfcplusplus-00 video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD29vEjBxls As many know, I am a fan of Informational (for many reasons), this sentence in the minutes captures for me the complexity: “There were observations about the apparent judgement involved in deciding that some RFCs are more important than others based on the stream or category.” And the end conclusion: “there was no potential consensus to judge” Enjoy the video with your favorite beverage and popcorn – Happy Friday’s –
Deborah
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Loa Andersson All, I'm on the same page as Robert, Andy and Stewasrt! /Loa On 2023-08-25 00: 31, Stewart Bryant wrote: > +1 also. > > If the issue is IESG time please consider
a much lighter weight review > process for such information texts. All,
I'm on the same page as Robert, Andy and Stewasrt!
/Loa
On 2023-08-25 00:31, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> +1 also.
>
> If the issue is IESG time please consider a much lighter weight review
> process for such information texts.
>
> Stewart
>
>> On 24 Aug 2023, at 3:09 pm, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >> +1
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:53 PM Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>> IESG -
>>
>> This statement is unclear, at least to me, on whether it is
>> intended to be used to tell groups NOT to send such documents to
>> the IESG unless their charter explicitly said they had permission
>> to do so.
>>
>> Please consider amending the statement as follows (and if you, as
>> a body, disagree with this, we need to have more community
>> discussion):
>>
>> "It is not the intent of the IESG to prevent publication of such
>> documents, even if they are not explicit charter deliverables, if
>> the working group has consensus to do so."
>>
>> That sentence might fit well at the end of the 4th paragraph.
>>
>> RjS
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: IESG Statement on Support Documents in IETF Working Groups
>> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 12:25:35 -0700
>> From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>
>> <mailto:iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>
>> Reply-To: support@xxxxxxxx <mailto:support@xxxxxxxx>
>> To: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
>> <mailto:ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
>> CC: iesg@xxxxxxxx <mailto:iesg@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>
>> The IESG has issued a Statement on Support Documents in IETF
>> Working Groups.
>>
>> 24 August 2023
>>
>> Support documents, such as problem statements, framework and
>> architecture documents, use case descriptions, or requirements
>> documents, can help working groups find agreement on their scope
>> and guide them toward suitable solutions.
>>
>> Read more:
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/support-documents/__;!!BhdT!nfwniE0GLOVBZc2JyYWGhMNiLoOw0Ol6HoDC-v9F5YwUvq4zVvQkldt6bY9o1eBbz_MMeHST$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/support-documents/__;!!BhdT!nfwniE0GLOVBZc2JyYWGhMNiLoOw0Ol6HoDC-v9F5YwUvq4zVvQkldt6bY9o1eBbz_MMeHST$>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>> IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx <mailto:IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce__;!!BhdT!nfwniE0GLOVBZc2JyYWGhMNiLoOw0Ol6HoDC-v9F5YwUvq4zVvQkldt6bY9o1eBbz8kfcJTL$
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce__;!!BhdT!nfwniE0GLOVBZc2JyYWGhMNiLoOw0Ol6HoDC-v9F5YwUvq4zVvQkldt6bY9o1eBbz8kfcJTL$>
>>
--
Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxx
Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@xxxxxxxxx
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
|
