Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes, http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
is the "random web page" version that I anticipate will become
an ION. This is a very good illustration of
a) something that needs to be accessible without an arbitrary
6 month expiry
b) needs to evolve
c) needs some minimal level of approval
d) is only relevant to the IETF's internal operations
Brian,
Your (a) criterion applies to to anything that is formally under development.
The real requirement is to produce a stable version and get it approved and
published, rather than have it languish in development. That is, after all, why
I-Ds were given a time-out. What is remaining, in order to get the draft
approved, to apply to Discuss votes?
Your (b) criterion implies some sort of expected high rate of change, if there
is a legitimate need for a streamlined publication mechanism. Yet the metabolic
rate for considering and stabilizing and approving the current draft is quite a
long way from satisfying that requirement. For that matter, do we really want
internal procedures to be changing that rapidly?
Your (c) criterion implies that a BCP-like mechanism is not acceptable. Here,
the difference between BCP -- with its IETF-wide appoval -- versus ION -- with
is IESG approval -- is at least an interesting distinction. On the other hand,
this particular draft is, if anything, likely to demonstrate why IETF-wide
approval is a particularly good idea, since its goal is to hold IESG members
accountable to more stringent criteria than are currently in force for blocking
approval of working group output. In addition the particular criteria listed in
the -discuss draft contain a number of items that reasonably could be viewed as
too stringent, too lenient, too vague, too low-level, or the like. The public
process of gaining community consensus seems important for the credibility of
the IETF process.
That leaves your (d) criterion, which was where the suggestion for a new RFC
label came from, rather than the creation of an entirely new publication
mechanism.
But the most important issue is probably getting the document reviewed,
approved, and applied, no matter what publication mechanism is.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf