Re: "Discuss" criteria

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]