Apparently I was reading it too broadly - it's not just the format, it's the
use of the submission process. But I'm still guessing - the only thing I had
to go on was "other groups", and that's not a constrained set to me.
Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Scott Brim"
<scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx>; "Lars Eggert" <lars.eggert@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "IETF discussion list" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:27 PM
Subject: RE: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate
Spencer,
Perhaps they thought you confused, but perhaps they were
wrong?
As far as I know, the current process for publishing FOO
as an RFC is via submission of an Internet Draft. Anyone can
do that.
--
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:40 PM
To: Eric Gray; Scott Brim; Lars Eggert
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate
Importance: High
Hi, Eric,
The guidance I was getting on the wgchairs mailing list was that "other
groups" is limited to other groups that also use the Internet-Draft
mechanism (including submissions, repositories, etc) - I was interpreting
"other groups" more broadly, and was told that I was confused.
Thanks,
Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Scott Brim"
<scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx>; "Lars Eggert" <lars.eggert@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "IETF discussion list" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:23 AM
Subject: RE: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate
Spencer,
I am pretty sure it really is that open ended (i.e. - there is no
real restriction on who can submit an Internet Draft, other than that
they probably have to have Internet access, and that means that it is
difficult to say that "other groups" does not include any group in the
inhabited galaxy that has access to the Internet, and can produce a
document that passes the "idnits minimal acceptability" test).
--
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Spencer Dawkins
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:52 AM
To: Scott Brim; Lars Eggert
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate
Yeah, I got wrapped around this on the WGchairs list, too. Thanks, Jeff, for
schooling me.
The problem is that "other groups" really is open-ended, but we don't mean
"other groups somewhere in the inhabited galaxy, that produce working drafts
using the same format", we mean "other groups like IAB that are closely
related to the IETF, but are not the IETF, and who ALSO use the same
Internet-Drafts format, submission process and repository". Is there a
shorthand for this, or do we have to stay vague to the point of
meaninglessness?
Thanks,
Spencer
The idea is generally acceptable to me but:
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
While we're at it, these two sentences are contradictory.
"Internet-Drafts are a specific thing" but "some Internet-Drafts may be
something else". Since you have (reasonably) eliminated reference to
areas and working groups, how about modifying this to say
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) distributes its working
documents as Internet-Drafts. Note that other groups may also
distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf