Note - I did not intend to advocate starting off by moving all BCPs into
IONs.
Some pieces of some BCPs may be better off as IONs. But I think that
having the "basic rules" as BCPs that are published as RFCs is something
that we shouldn't be too quick to change.
Harald
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Disclaimer: I haven't read Harald's document yet.
On Saturday, May 27, 2006 07:00:07 AM -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
3. The question is how the title of the series will actually be
interpreted by average folk on the Internet, not what you might have
intended.
Average folk on the Internet have never even _heard_ of the IETF, let
alone understand the difference between the IETF, IESG, etc. I'd
expect the majority of those who have to interpret "IETF Operationsl
Notes" as "notes about the operation of the IETF". A few may
interpret the series title to mean "notes from the IETF about the
operation of the Internet". For anyone not involved in the IETF, the
first meaning is sufficient, and they're not going to care what the
process is for approving new ION's or updates to existing ones, or how
that impacts the title.
I think it's been stated several times that the intent is not to grant
sweeping new powers to the IESG, but to have a document series which
encompasses _all_ of our process, practices, and procedures,
regardless of approval level. For the purpose of a process
experiment, I think we can apply a fairly simple rule - if it would
have required a BCP before, it still requires IETF concensus onder the
experiment; the document just gets published in the new series instead
of the old one. Anything that previously would not have required a
BCP still doesn't.
For the long term, if the experiment proves successful, we probably
need a more well-defined policy. One approach might be to adopt a
model in which all authority derives from the IETF, by IETF consensus
model. So, anything which changes he structure or overall process of
the IETF requires IETF consensus, but bodies like the IESG, IAB, or
IAOC can publish documents on policy or procedure which they are
empowered by IETF process to set (e.g. IESG balloting procedures, i-d
nits, or criteria for selecting meeting locations) or which are
descriptive rather than prescriptive (e.g. the Tao). This probably
needs to be formulated better, but I don't think it's necessary to
wait for that before beginning the experiment.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf