Re: Last Call: draft-carpenter-rfc2026-changes (Changes to the ..

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

 



As a procedural matter, I agree with Scott and John. This
document should not be considered for advancement at this
time nor until such time as there is real evidence of
widespread consensus.

As a substantive issue, renaming PS and DS to Preliminary
and Deplyable strikes me as a terrible idea. Whatever the
merits of the current names, they are the ones we have and
changing them now will only create confusion. Deployable
is a particularly bad choice since PSs are regularly
deployed.

-Ekr

At Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:07:33 -0500,
John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Monday, 21 January, 2008 16:50 -0500 "Scott O. Bradner"
> <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > sorry - it does not make any sense at all to last call this
> > document 
> > 
> > it has had no meaningful discussion - we should not be
> > updating our core process documents this flippantly 
> 
> FWIW, while I don't see anything flippant in either the author's
> intentions or in the Last Call announcement, I have to agree
> with Scott.  Only a couple of people commented on this prior to
> the Last Call announcement.  I fear that confirms my hypothesis
> that the community has gotten burned out on process work and
> that it is going to be very hard to get meaningful consensus on
> changes across the community (rather than among those who get
> excited about process issues).
> 
> Even ignoring the issue of how meaningful consensus is to be
> determined, my recollection is that some of the few comments
> pointed out problems and suggested changes which the author
> agreed to make.  That would suggest that we should at least see
> a revision (to -03) that reflects the author's latest thinking
> before a Last Call is announced.
> 
> Significant changes to 2026 --even changes that the author
> believes are just updates to reflect current practice-- are
> important enough to justify, e.g., a plenary presentation and
> discussion in Philadelphia.  We've got too much experience
> making changes to process documents that seemed reasonable, did
> not get careful and extensive review, and that turned out to
> have significant unintended consequences.  A conclusion that the
> document isn't important enough to justify plenary discussion or
> the equivalent is, for me, a conclusion that we don't need it
> right now.
> 
>     john
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> 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]