--On Wednesday, 19 January, 2005 23:16 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I _think_ the intent is that the published BCP will represent a formal agreement between ISOC and the IETF, but of course the work-in-progress internet-draft does not. Given this, I think it's appropriate any time we add to text for people comment on "what we're asking ISOC to do". By proposing adding a requirement to a document we expect will represent agreement between ISOC and the IETF, we _are_ asking ISOC to do something. ...
I think we need to be a little careful with any assumptions about changes between that "work in progress" I-D and the "published RFC". According to the I-D tracker, bcp-04 was in the IESG's queue for _approval action_ at today's teleconf (I haven't checked today to see if there has been an update but it would normally take a bit of time to appear even had there been an action). The reason for getting it into the queue is described in the tracker and makes that listing basically a placeholder -- it is a bit of a procedural ruse, but, at least IMO, nothing serious. It creates an opportunity for abuse, but I do not expect that it will be abused. But the important point is that the queue entry is about -04, not about -05 nor some "ready to be published" formal agreement text. Once something is approved by the IESG and sent off to the RFC Editor, what gets published is the document as sent modulo boilerplate, editorial, and formatting changes.
Exactly true.
The various schedules that have floated around don't contain a step for "rewrite the agreement into the form of a formal agreement and then Last Call it again". The Last Call would, IMO, be needed given a complete rewrite so that the community could verify that the intent had not changed. If you (or others) think such a rewrite is important, then you had best start advocating that position and seeing if you can get support behind it.
I think you must be reading something into my message that wasn't there.
I don't believe any such rewrite is necessary. I _do_ believe we had better make sure that by the time the IESG approves the document, its _contents_ will be agreeable to the ISOC board. Only at that point will this document be the agreement between ISOC and the IETF, rather than merely an expression of what the IETF is asking ISOC to agree to.
It is _that_ point I was trying to make in response to Fred's comment about whether this document is "the agreement" or "the IETF's request" -- it is both, depending on at what time you ask.
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+@xxxxxxx> Sr. Research Systems Programmer School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf