On 30-Aug-24 09:33, Michael Richardson wrote:
Rob Wilton \(rwilton\) <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 3. Split/migrate the existing IETF process into what must be in the
> RFCs/BCP and what moves to webpages (hopefully also incorporating
> appropriate IESG statements). If we want to change core parts of the
> IETF process, i.e., the parts that are documented in BCPs, then this
> may be a time to consider this, but this could also be deferred, to
> reduce risk). Moving text to webpages may be quite a lot of work, but
What kind of risks are you thinking here?
I think that the biggest risk is a 1000 message long debate over minutia
which pisses off half the community, and we lose the energy to finish :-)
There's another risk, which is why I keep banging on about https://www.ietf.org/process/informal/: sheer complexity. Cleaning up RFC 2026 and RFC 2418 will be no means solve the problem. We have multiple process BCPs, multiple related Informational RFCs, multiple IESG statements, and multiple bits of folklore.
Brian
