Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

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

 



Being a relatively short-term IETF participant, I lack the history that many on this list have, but since Jari asked for comments, I'll provide some.

Stated briefly, I agree with Steve Kent, Adam Roach, Ben Campbell, and others that it makes sense to have IESG notes be mandatory for the ISE to include in independent stream RFCs.


Stated at more length:

What is clearly going on here is that our branding is out of sync with the expectations of our customers. Whatever their historical meaning, RFCs are now interpreted by the broad community as documents that have the been reviewed and approved, to a greater or lesser degree, by the Internet community. I think we all agree that documents that go through the IETF or the IAB can more or less legitimately claim that imprimatur.

Independent submissions clearly cannot. Given that, it's not clear to me why the independent stream exists at all, other than for historical reasons.

Given that the abolition of the independent stream doesn't seem to be an option at this point, the next best thing to do is to require that independent-stream RFCs alert the reader to two things:
1. That this is not a document that has received IETF or IAB review, and
2. If the Internet community has any serious concerns, what they are

Clearly the first point is an issue for Headers and Boilerplates. The second point is represented in the current process by IESG notes; if the Internet community has concerns about a document, they can be included in the document as an IESG note. Given that the IESG is selected through a community process, I'm comfortable with this delegation, though requiring IETF consensus would clearly add some assurance.

The other implication of the above paragraph is that the *absence* of an IESG note indicates to the reader that the community has no serious concerns, which means that enabling the ISE to reject IESG notes effectively enables the ISE to speak on behalf of the community. Given the choice, I would prefer the IESG to speak for me than the ISE.

So I agree with Jari's option (b), that IESG notes should be something that is always applied to the published RFC.

--Richard





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

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