On Sunday, December 17, 2006 06:05:45 PM -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One might want to wonder, a bit, about the IETF's having a growing number of such documents, and that this might make it more difficult to know enough about IETF procedures and the like
On the contrary, I don't think the process has gotten any more complex; we just have more documentation about it. Whether that makes it easier or harder to know enough about IETF procedures would seem to depend on the accuracy and currency of that documentation.
On reflecting about the forces that seem to have led to the creation of the ION "experiment", I suspect that there are two concerns: 1) Needing a label that collects together internal operating notes and distinguishes them from other IETF documents, and 2) the overhead of getting an RFC published. The first could be solved easily by adding a new, non-standard-track sub-label to the RFC series and I suspect the latter could be resolved by making an arrangement with the RFC Editor to have IONs go through less handling and proofing overhead. (And, gosh, this might even give a basis for reviewing why RFC publication has become high overhead...)
I don't think it's just about the overhead of getting an RFC _published_; it's about the overhead of achieving IETF consensus on one. Process BCP's should be about IETF-level policy, not the operational practices of the I* or of any other entity that implements those policies.
Recently, the Federal Communications Commission in the US adopted a number of changes to regulations governing the Amateur Radio service. The changes were "officially" published on November 15, and went into effect 30 days later. In between, someone noticed an error which inadvertently made certain operations illegal that should not have been, and asked the FCC to fix it. The fix was approved on December 15, the same day the new regulations became effective, and will probably become effective sometime in February.
The same sort of correction would have taken the IETF six months to a year plus a lot of arguing and reopening old issues. A similar correction to an ION would have taken days, at most. And that's sort of the point - overall policy should be set by IETF consensus, but operational details should not.
-- Jeff _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf