John C Klensin wrote: > Everyone has their own favorite issues with RFC 2026 and most of > us have problems with it that they believe are serious enough to > fix. What we have seen in this discussion (and many before it) > is that there is little consensus on which issues are the most > important, nor about what should be done about them. Yes, and after various attempts to create a 2026bis failed I think Brian's approach to "fix" only a few low hanging fruits is fine. In theory, of course some arguments (example) against renaming PS and DS here convinced me that those are not "low hanging fruits". > Some would even argue that the entire Newtrk WG process was an > example of the problem. I only hope that "PUFI" uses one of the existing PESCI (or was it PECSI ?), newtrk, etc. mailing lists instead of starting its own. > there is a difference between "we are considering standardizing > this, speak up if you have strong opinions, especially negative > ones", "we are considering publishing this...", and "we are > looking for community comment on whether this is worth pursuing". > I think Last Call announcements should reflect those differences. > For technical documents, they generally do (although obviously > not in those words). They didn't explicitly say that the 2821bis Last Call was actually only a call to finish 2822upd... ;-) > I think procedural documents are different. The activity of > considering and discussing them is disruptive of the community. I guess that's because you feel they are very important. Often I think about topics I consider as very important, "oh no, I have no time for this, why must they screw *now* with it, nothing is horribly wrong with how it is", etc. > I think a Last Call --especially a Last Call that implies that > the IESG is seriously considering adoption and that community > silence might be construed as assent-- is inappropriate in the > absence of clear indications of community support for, and > interest in, the work. I thought that "Last Call" means that *one* AD prepares a later IESG decision. Not that the IESG collectively considers adoption, or has necessarily an idea what the Last Call is about before the various voluntary review teams create an "executive summary". > There has been little discussion except among the handful of > people in the community who can be counted on to comment on > almost any procedural issues (that includes you and, > unfortunately, me). Yes, changing the rules makes me nervous for the known reasons. But if an author, here Brian, tries to fix some known problems, then that's good, and at some point in time the author needs to know what others think about the proposed fixes. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf