I agree with your points here, and I think it points up something I
have been feeling about this and not putting words to.
I really don't think the issue is whether it is a web page, an I-D,
an RFC, or something else. The point is that we need a document
process that will allow people to put things in and have them come
out the other end in a predictable time period, or remain in the
intermediate state if they are being actively developed. Inventing a
new document format feels to me like putting a bandaid on the
problem, rather than dealing with the root cause, the latter being
that we are becoming so process-bound that we don't actually get
things done.
We can discuss separately whether this ION thing is worthwhile.
Personally, I would prefer to get the hard discussions and decisions
done, which are those that get us out of this legalistic process
nonsense.
On Dec 28, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf