Before commenting on the question, I wish to comment slightly on the
exposition. While I understand that some IESG members were surprised
that the text brought to them treated IESG notes as a recommendation to
the RFC Editor, such surprise gap in historical information rather than
a change. That text was not a change in practice. The documented rules
and practice has long been that with regard to Independent Submissions
the IESG notes are a request / recommendation to the RFC Editor (soon to
be ISE), not a statement of what will be included in the result.
Based on having seen a number of IESG notes, and reading the resulting
text and its inherent tone, I would strongly prefer that IESG notes be
an exception. Also, I believe that the stream identification and
associated indications are quite sufficient for the normal case. Unless
we wish to deliberately denigrate the Independent Submissions tream, we
should not be putting extra notes on the front of them. I consider the
Independent Stream to be an important source of information and
commentary that helps the overall internet process, and would be very
unhappy to see it denigrated.
Thus, I strongly prefer (a). I prefer that such notes be rare, and
that they remain recommendations to the ISE.
Even if the IAB were to agree that such notes should be common, I would
strongly recommend that the tone and content of such notes remain at the
discretion of the ISE. Otherwise, there is no true Independent series.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
Jari Arkko wrote:
I would like to get some further input from the community on this draft.
But first some background. This draft was brought to a second last call
in June because several IESG members felt uncomfortable with the IESG
notes being used only in exceptional circumstances. I asked Russ to
prepare the -07 version. This version allowed notes to be used at the
IESG's discretion and suggested that the linkage (or lack thereof) to
IETF work would typically be explained in the note. This version was
taken to the second last call.
While the number of comments we received was small, after the last call
was over I determined that the consensus was against this change. As a
result, I asked Russ to prepare the -08 version. This version goes back
to the "exceptional" wording from -06, but incorporated a number of
editorial corrections that had been made in interim. I also took the
draft back to the IESG telechat last week. The IESG was not extremely
pleased with the new version, but my understanding is that they were
willing to accept the changes. However, a new issue was brought up: one
of the changes that Russ and I felt was editorial highlighted the fact
that the document makes the IESG notes a recommendation to the RFC
Editor, not something that would automatically always be applied to the
published RFC. Some IESG members were concerned about this, and
preferred the latter.
And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get a
sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional IESG
note is just a recommendation to the RFC Editor or (b) something that is
always applied to the published RFC. Please reply before the next IESG
meeting on September 10. Some e-mails on this topic have already been
sent in the Last Call thread -- I have seen those and there is no need
to resend.
(For the record my own slight preference is b. But I have to say that I
think the document has been ready to be shipped from version -06, and
its unfortunate that we're not there yet, particularly since this
document is holding up the implementation of the new headers and
boilerplates system for independent submissions, IRTF submissions and
IETF submissions. I will exhaust all possible means of getting this
approved in the next meeting, as soon as I know what the community
opinion is.)
Jari Arkko
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf