Re: I-D ACTION:draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-10.txt

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

 



At 1:11 AM -0700 10/13/09, SM wrote:
Hi Steve,
At 12:18 12-10-2009, Stephen Kent wrote:
When the site closed, do you believe that all of the material published there will become inaccessible, not archived anywhere? I doubt that.

I am not sure whether all the material will be available at archive.org or other archiving sites. If the material is archived on one site only, there's a risk of "too big to fail". I can change the material I publish. That's not always good if the material is to be used as a reference (immutability). It took me some time to understand that sometimes we need access to an old version of a specification, and not the latest one, even if that version contains mistakes. T

I agree with your observations, but I don't think that the RFC series is the only way to achieve the characteristics you cite.

hat's part of the intrinsic qualities I mentioned in my earlier message.

The status quo does not mandate that the RFC Editor and the IESG agree; it allows the RFC Editor to make a unilateral decision to ignore an IESG note. So, I don't agree with the second part of your statement above. I do agree that the change diminishes the independence of the RFC Editor.

You are trying to persuade me to change my stance while I am trying to persuade you to change yours. It is in essence a dialogue. If one of us is the authority which makes the decision, that person can make an unilateral decision and ignore the other person's opinion. By invoking that authority, the person causes a break down of the dialogue. When two parties are bound to work together on a regular basis, that can result in an uncomfortable situation. Now, if we have to add an appeal (it's not being made in an individual capacity) to that, we can end up with a larger issue instead of a difference of perspectives between an individual and a body.

Good points. My view is that a shift in the balance of power is appropriate, and that an appeal process can increase confidence that the IESG will not abuse its power (if granted). But, that is not a guarantee. Not sure about your last sentence above, since the RFC Editor is no longer an individual, but a function effected by a set of individuals. At least the IESG, another set of individuals, least appointed through in open process, unlike the RFC Editor.

Let's step away from the draft being discussed for a few minutes and ponder on whether either of us is being unreasonable. Now, if we cannot figure out the answer, let's ask (figuratively) someone else for advice. We have the choice of accepting the advice even though we are right or seeking an advice that will suite us.

Of course you and I are reasonable people :-). Not sure how the rest of the paragraph above fits into our discussion though.


Steve
_______________________________________________

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]