John C Klensin wrote:
> (i) Internet-Drafts and RFCs are different creatures.
> It is perfectly acceptable, indeed common, to have text
> in I-Ds that no one intends to see in a final RFC.
I-D not intended to be an RFC was clear, but we missed
the critical "text *_in_* an I-D" trick / how-to / option...
> (ii) The IESG can instruct IANA to form a registry
...in conjunction with this shortcut.
> Those instructions can be in an RFC, in an I-D, in a formal
> IESG note to IANA, or, in principle, written on the
> back of an envelope.
Okay, that's better - at least for the future 3066ter with
several thousands of ISO 639-3 language subtags.
> The document is passed to the RFC Editor for publication,
> but with a note indicating that the 100 or so pages of
> subtags should be dropped and replaced by a paragraph that
> explains how the initial subtags, as specified by the WG
> process, can be identified from the registry itself.
Makes sense, and that text could be "informational".
> I _strongly_ prefer that the relevant paragraph be
> constructed and approved by the WG itself, rather than
> being made up by one or more IESG members; I assume the
> IESG would feel the same way.
You obviously have a working "threat analysis" for these
procedural details, where the threats cover hypothetical
cases like "IESG screws up" or "somebody cries 'appeal'" ;-)
> a RFC that is 100 or so pages shorter and that eliminates
> any chance of the contents of the RFC being confused with
> the contents of the registry itself (something that the
> I-D explicitly warns against).
Okay, I knew that it's possible to have notes to the RfC-
editor in an I-D (e.g. instructions to remove the document
history), but I didn't know that it's also possible to have
similar notes _to_ the IESG (unlike _from_ the IESG).
> unfathomable to me
Authors feel like fathers, easily upset if you'd propose to
"do" something with their baby that's strictly impossible ;-)
> if, somehow, the WG believes that there is "credit" for an
> RFC in proportion to its page count. That belief would be,
> AFIK, pretty novel around the IETF.
It's far too short for the Guiness book as the longest RfC,
so that wasn't our intention. RfC 2801 could be the record.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf