On 9/14/09 10:13 AM, "RJ Atkinson" <rja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 14 Sep 2009, at 10:00, Polk, William T. wrote: >> IMHO, the current text places a responsibility on the IESG to deal >> with >> "exceptional circumstances" but fails to provide the tools to >> execute that >> responsibility. After 27 years in government, I have a lot of >> experience >> with assignment of responsibility without authority, and none of it >> was >> positive. > > It is interesting to better understand your perspective. > > I would have read the "current text" in a nearly inverted meaning: > providing "authority to deal with someone trying to make an > 'end run' around the IETF in some area of current IETF effort", > by requesting the RFC-Editor to add an IESG note in such a case, > but not requiring the IESG to do so. > It is a fair observation... The word "responsibility" doesn't appear, so that is just the way I interpret it. Since this option is reserved for "exceptional" cases, I guess I think the IESG would have an obligation to address the issue, but that may be an AD-specific reading. > To me, the most relevant datum is that we have more than 15 years > of operational experience with the current setup, and zero actual > problems. > If we are lucky, this a painful exercise to establish process that will not need to be tested in practice. I certainly hope that is the case. > [...stuff deleted here...] > >>> 3) As I understand things, and on this I might be a bit >>> out-dated as to the current state of things, there is >>> a concrete proposal to also add to each RFC (starting >>> in the near future and continuing forward) the specific >>> "Document Stream" (i.e. IETF, IRTF, IAB, Independent >>> Submission) via which a particular RFC was published. >>> >>> I have no objection to that addition. I don't think that >>> it is really necessary, given (1) and (2) above, but it >>> seems to make some folks more comfortable and I don't >>> immediately see any harm in that addition. >>> >> >> I actually think this is a very good addition, precisely because I >> believe >> (1) and (2) are insufficient. If the reader reads and understands the >> boilerplate, we have the 98% solution. >> >> (I personally have my doubts about reading and understanding the >> boilerplate, > > This parenthetical bit just above is confusing, and (at least to me) > non-obvious. > > Why would someone who can read sufficiently well to understand > the content of an RFC have trouble distinguishing between the > "Status of this Memo" texts AND also have trouble understanding > the RFC's "Category" field ? > It's not that the reader can't, it's that they *won't*. I don't believe readers always read the boilerplate, and I don't think many readers bother to research the difference between the categories. I find even long time members of the IETF Community can debate whether a particular document should be PS vs. BCP vs. Informational for a long time, so I am sure that the nuances will be lost on the casual reader. However, my limited expectations of the reader are irrelevant beyond confirming my pessimistic nature. I think the test we should apply is for people that will read and understand the boilerplate. (Otherwise, they wouldn't see the IESG note anyway!) >> but I believe that is the >> criteria the community would have the IESG apply: "Assuming the reader >> understands the headers and boilerplate, is a note really needed?") > > I'm glad that you agree that seems to be the (most of the) > community's perspective. > > [...stuff deleted here...] > >> [I wouldn't assume that anyone speaks for the IESG on this topic, >> especially >> me! This represents my personal views only.] > > Fair enough. > > Thanks for the explanations. At a minimum, I think I understand > your perspective much better. > +1 Tim > Yours, > > Ran Atkinson > rja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf